Seriously? I understand that Eon has very different priorities and concerns than the fanbase (especially those of us on this forum), but if we can believe Barbara here, it feels like a case of malign neglect. After the controversial ending of NTTD, it made total sense to take a pause. Bond would necessarily need to be reimagined. But this is one of cinema's most historic and iconic franchises. For one of the producers to announce they're not doing anything feels disrespectful to her own father's legacy.
James Bond enters the public domain in the US/UK/EU in 2034. At this rate EON will be lucky to have produced 2 more films. You'd think they'd want to profit off Bond while they can.
Perhaps when she says "we haven't even begun" she means it in the sense of "the most demanding part of the job hasn't started yet" or "we haven't put the machinery in top gear yet"?
It seems such an odd thing to say that I wonder if there aren't some sort of internal politics going on (with Amazon maybe) that are meaning she has to legally say they're not working on it. Because even if you're not it's so easy to lie and say 'yeah we're in the middle of thinking up a new direction right now', isn't it?
The disregard with which she speaks of the next film is really bothersome at this point. If she's telling the truth, there's no excuse after all of this time to not have any work done on the next film. It's been multiple years now and the freshest thing on people's minds is the death of your franchise character.
Only for the books. The contract Broccoli, Saltzman and Fleming signed in 1961 made EON the only company legally allowed to produce movies featuring the character and its universe. The CR67 and NSNA cases are exceptions. EON didn't own the rights of the first novel at that time while for TB, everyone knows about the McClory/Whittingham/Fleming issue. For the rest, EON owns everyhting about Bond screenwise for life.
Not true, anyone will be able to make films featuring the James Bond character so long as they don't infringe on EON / Danjaq's copyright. Aka NSNA type films are a-okay.
NSNA is a special case, so is CR67. There's only one company owning the rights, and if you think it's wrong, you can ask some lawyers. The 1961 contract is clear and there's no legal status authorizing a rival franchise to emerge, even after 2034.
James Bond will remain a trademark (not copyright) of Danjaq/MGM indefinitely. I suspect that making a movie featuring the character will be impossible unless you're licensed by them.
Steamboat Willie goes out of copyright soon but that won't mean that anyone can make a Mickey Mouse cartoon because he is trademarked by Disney.
@emtiem thanks ! That's what I tried to explain. In other words, neither the name "James Bond" nor the "007" number can be used without the approval of Danjaq. If a rival company decides to make a LALD adaptation for instance, they can't have the main character named James Bond, code number 007. 2034 or not, the 1961 deal is secured for life.
Agreed, the 2034 date is not as important for the films as people tend to think. In addition to the points others have made about the trademark protection, Amazon is a company with, quite literally, limitless resources. They can tie up any rogue production in litigation for years. It would hardly be worth the candle to go up against them, even with a meritorious argument.
The simple answer is she was promoting the reality show and wasn't going to file Eon's internal going-on with the press.
Of course they're working on it. They just aren't going to tell YOU yet.
Look at any press release of a film in production. They'll announce "so and so joins cast" or "(crew members) comes on board" months after that person has completed their work on the film. They're not bound to update us in real time.
Yes, they can. They can't use the gunbarrel, the 007 logo, or the familiar theme (what EON created), but the names as they exist in the books can be used. Ian Fleming and his estate cannot sell the rights that they don't own. When the copyright on a book expires the exclusive rights to adapt that book or use that character, which is what EON bought, also expire.
Disney owns the trademarks associated with Winnie the Pooh, but Blood and Honey still got made and produced. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a sequel with Mickey Mouse based off of the characters look in Steamboat Willie.
EON's version of Bond will still have value after 2034, but one could argue that value will decrease.
Amazon suing any rival productions brings up a point, what if the rival IS Amazon. Make those period piece adaptations of the novels for streaming. So what if the Broccolis (or their heirs) object. Commission a new series of novels to sell on the Amazon store. After 2034 the idea of "Official" continuing novels will be moot.
@Westward_Drift that's what I thought initially, until someone who knows extremely well this legal issue told me precisely about the 1961 deal.
For other fictions, the situation would be different, but we are facing here quite a special case. The fact EON has frequently changed the 007 logo over the years is not only an aesthetic move.
What you have to understand is IFP and Danjaq are two distinct entities, and even after 2034, the second one will remain the only company legally allowed to produce movies featuring the James Bond 007 character. I know it seems irrelevant considering the 70 years period following the death of Fleming, but that's the way it is.
Nevertheless, if any other company decides to produce a faithful adaptation of LALD for instance, it will be possible but the condition will be to use neither the name James Bond nor the 007 code.
Disney owns the trademarks to its version of Winnie the Pooh, whereas Danjaq owns the trademarks for James Bond 007 - even IFP have to licence Bond from them when they write a new book, and they're not using Eon's version.
There won't be a non-official Mickey Mouse cartoon any more than you can produce a drink and call it 'Coca Cola' just because that was founded over 100 years ago 😁
I can’t imagine Amazon de-valuing its own IP by going against EON like that. The more likely scenario is a straight buy-out of EON. Amazon will grind anyone who tries to make a Bond film into dust.
Also I am looking at it from American copyright law, which is not the same as British or EU copyright law. Just look at the differences in fashion law with regard to copyright.
I think back to the Conan Doyle estate's conflict with Paramount about the Star Trek: TNG holodeck episodes where Data played Holmes. Now 35+ years later the copyright is well and truly expired. Just try to keep track of the hundreds of Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories written in the last few decades.
Comments
Seriously? I understand that Eon has very different priorities and concerns than the fanbase (especially those of us on this forum), but if we can believe Barbara here, it feels like a case of malign neglect. After the controversial ending of NTTD, it made total sense to take a pause. Bond would necessarily need to be reimagined. But this is one of cinema's most historic and iconic franchises. For one of the producers to announce they're not doing anything feels disrespectful to her own father's legacy.
James Bond enters the public domain in the US/UK/EU in 2034. At this rate EON will be lucky to have produced 2 more films. You'd think they'd want to profit off Bond while they can.
Perhaps when she says "we haven't even begun" she means it in the sense of "the most demanding part of the job hasn't started yet" or "we haven't put the machinery in top gear yet"?
In other words I find it hard to belive EON hasn't done anything at all yet.
It won't stop being a trademark then.
It seems such an odd thing to say that I wonder if there aren't some sort of internal politics going on (with Amazon maybe) that are meaning she has to legally say they're not working on it. Because even if you're not it's so easy to lie and say 'yeah we're in the middle of thinking up a new direction right now', isn't it?
The disregard with which she speaks of the next film is really bothersome at this point. If she's telling the truth, there's no excuse after all of this time to not have any work done on the next film. It's been multiple years now and the freshest thing on people's minds is the death of your franchise character.
There is an excuse if there’s some sort of legal obstacle which we don’t know about. The Amazon takeover looks to have been messy.
The evasive language from Barbara in this interview does not surprise me one iota. It could be the truth. It could be a smoke-screen. That's all.
At least this will stop the rumors of "So-and-So Has Been Cast as the Next James Bond!!!!"
. . .Oh, who am I kidding?
Only for the books. The contract Broccoli, Saltzman and Fleming signed in 1961 made EON the only company legally allowed to produce movies featuring the character and its universe. The CR67 and NSNA cases are exceptions. EON didn't own the rights of the first novel at that time while for TB, everyone knows about the McClory/Whittingham/Fleming issue. For the rest, EON owns everyhting about Bond screenwise for life.
Not true, anyone will be able to make films featuring the James Bond character so long as they don't infringe on EON / Danjaq's copyright. Aka NSNA type films are a-okay.
NSNA is a special case, so is CR67. There's only one company owning the rights, and if you think it's wrong, you can ask some lawyers. The 1961 contract is clear and there's no legal status authorizing a rival franchise to emerge, even after 2034.
James Bond will remain a trademark (not copyright) of Danjaq/MGM indefinitely. I suspect that making a movie featuring the character will be impossible unless you're licensed by them.
Steamboat Willie goes out of copyright soon but that won't mean that anyone can make a Mickey Mouse cartoon because he is trademarked by Disney.
@emtiem thanks ! That's what I tried to explain. In other words, neither the name "James Bond" nor the "007" number can be used without the approval of Danjaq. If a rival company decides to make a LALD adaptation for instance, they can't have the main character named James Bond, code number 007. 2034 or not, the 1961 deal is secured for life.
Agreed, the 2034 date is not as important for the films as people tend to think. In addition to the points others have made about the trademark protection, Amazon is a company with, quite literally, limitless resources. They can tie up any rogue production in litigation for years. It would hardly be worth the candle to go up against them, even with a meritorious argument.
The simple answer is she was promoting the reality show and wasn't going to file Eon's internal going-on with the press.
Of course they're working on it. They just aren't going to tell YOU yet.
Look at any press release of a film in production. They'll announce "so and so joins cast" or "(crew members) comes on board" months after that person has completed their work on the film. They're not bound to update us in real time.
Yes, they can. They can't use the gunbarrel, the 007 logo, or the familiar theme (what EON created), but the names as they exist in the books can be used. Ian Fleming and his estate cannot sell the rights that they don't own. When the copyright on a book expires the exclusive rights to adapt that book or use that character, which is what EON bought, also expire.
Disney owns the trademarks associated with Winnie the Pooh, but Blood and Honey still got made and produced. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a sequel with Mickey Mouse based off of the characters look in Steamboat Willie.
EON's version of Bond will still have value after 2034, but one could argue that value will decrease.
Amazon suing any rival productions brings up a point, what if the rival IS Amazon. Make those period piece adaptations of the novels for streaming. So what if the Broccolis (or their heirs) object. Commission a new series of novels to sell on the Amazon store. After 2034 the idea of "Official" continuing novels will be moot.
@Westward_Drift that's what I thought initially, until someone who knows extremely well this legal issue told me precisely about the 1961 deal.
For other fictions, the situation would be different, but we are facing here quite a special case. The fact EON has frequently changed the 007 logo over the years is not only an aesthetic move.
What you have to understand is IFP and Danjaq are two distinct entities, and even after 2034, the second one will remain the only company legally allowed to produce movies featuring the James Bond 007 character. I know it seems irrelevant considering the 70 years period following the death of Fleming, but that's the way it is.
Nevertheless, if any other company decides to produce a faithful adaptation of LALD for instance, it will be possible but the condition will be to use neither the name James Bond nor the 007 code.
Disney owns the trademarks to its version of Winnie the Pooh, whereas Danjaq owns the trademarks for James Bond 007 - even IFP have to licence Bond from them when they write a new book, and they're not using Eon's version.
There won't be a non-official Mickey Mouse cartoon any more than you can produce a drink and call it 'Coca Cola' just because that was founded over 100 years ago 😁
I can’t imagine Amazon de-valuing its own IP by going against EON like that. The more likely scenario is a straight buy-out of EON. Amazon will grind anyone who tries to make a Bond film into dust.
Also I am looking at it from American copyright law, which is not the same as British or EU copyright law. Just look at the differences in fashion law with regard to copyright.
I think back to the Conan Doyle estate's conflict with Paramount about the Star Trek: TNG holodeck episodes where Data played Holmes. Now 35+ years later the copyright is well and truly expired. Just try to keep track of the hundreds of Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories written in the last few decades.