I honestly loved reading this article, more than a bit due to the number of folks in here and elsewhere incessantly blaming Eon for the delays. A few of you should probably own up to past statements instead of pivoting to another know-it-all pedestal and acting like you haven't been talking s hit for three years. 😊
"Have you read the contract?" Get their as ses, Barbara.
This WSJ article seems slightly odd to me considering EON's announcement yesterday of the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang reboot with Amazon.
If the relationship was really that fraught and they were really at a stalemate over Bond, it seems odd they'd be happy to work with each other elsewhere. No?
Yep me too, I've always said that it seemed more likely that the hiatus was down to the relationship with Amazon than anything else, it's annoyed me when folks have decided it's because Broccoli doesn't have the hunger for it (that her dad had, is often the comparison) or that she's too in love with Craig etc. as if people can see into her head.
@HalfMonk HalfHitman I'm writing as someone who belong to those who maintained their faith in EON from the beginning, precisely because I couldn't blame them for something I didn't know anything about. After all, it's not like if they didn't have to face the concept of 'reinvention' in the past.
To be honest, my first reaction just after I finished reading the article was sadness. What is currently happening is not good for the franchise, and I'm sure many of those who blamed EON would have preferred not to. Perhaps I'm getting naive, but I tend to think people here genuinely love Bond, and sometimes passion can lead to such reactions. The fact the last film still remains divisive three years after its release probably doesn't help because no matter whether one loves it or hates it, we can understand now it will be Bond's last ride for a long time. I have no issue with NTTD (not necessarily a film I'd rewatch often but I don't hate it), but I can imagine why people who deeply dislike it just wish to move on quickly and see brand news stories involving the heroe they love. It's just human.
There can be a grain of truth in both though, surely? This is all just speculation at the end of the day.
It's clear that Barbara cares about legacy and wouldn't want some anti-art, tech bro, bean counting imbeciles barging in and tarnishing what her family stewarded. At the same time, she may not have the same energetic spark to pump out films as was once the case.
It's clear she doesn't have the same production-line mentality Cubby had for releasing pure, formulaic entertainment. It's why she was willing to wait for Craig to return on his own terms, rather than pressing ahead with a movie with a new actor. The Craig era was clearly her baby - hugely financially successful and, in the minds of many, more artistically meritorious than the somewhat 'disposable' popcorn adventures of yesteryear. I disagree with that sentiment and much prefer the original 62-02 run, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is that Barbara received huge accolades from her peers in the industry for what she did; rising above any possible accusations of nepotism and putting her own bold stamp on Bond. Making it better than ever before. With all that said and done, it's not hard to imagine a lack of enthusiasm to either A) return to the old ways and simply churn out fun, light entertainment, or B) make something equally thematically weighty as the Craig era, but now possibly derivative (how many times can we make him fall in love, lose those around him, quit the job, go rogue, self-sacrifice? etc).
I don't think there's much appetite to return to the classic formula given how much props they received for shaking it up, but at the same time, you can only shake it up so much within the established parameters of the character and get a different result. You can't shock the world with a Casino Royale repeatedly, as the impact of that film worked as a contrast to what audiences were already accustomed to. So where do they go if either option is considered equally derivative to those making it?
Amazon being expectedly shitty I don't think changes the likelihood that they fundamentally don't know where to take the series next.
I've always thought that BB may not be interested in making Bond (which is fair enough - we all have our own interests), and that she may find the idea of rebooting it again undesirable - particularly if the Craig era was her vision.
But I don't think there's any reason to apologize. It was all just as speculative as anything the Eon supporters said.
I'd still like her to sell so we can get films at a decent two to three years again (and there's no reason to imagine they would be any less insufficiently prepared as Spectre, disorganised as No Time to Die, or as plot-holed as Skyfall), and such a sale could well be possible even now.
On her reluctance to have a billionaire bad guy: That's appropriate for the times, yet she reportedly feels it will be a re-tread of Elliot Carver. Options: find a fresh way of presenting it; just do it again and remember Tomorrow Never Dies was thirty years ago and many viewers of the new film will not know about TND; or get someone else to make the film and worry about it.
There's the vague possibility that Amazon may sell their Bond rights and keep the rest of MGM, thereby recouping the money they spent.
Or this has all been a public game of Chess with Eon showing Amazon that they have teeth.
Interesting comment. From what BB said, the exercise mainly consists in having each new iteration of the chatacter in step with time, which means several parameters have to be considered (threats, social trends...).
Of course, there are patterns, but it doesn't necessarily mean the formula has become derivative. For example, I've often wondered how they could explore the concept of having Bond falling in love with another member of the double O section. A female colleague he's been working with for a long time, a woman he genuinely relies on and who turns out to be a traitor running for the enemy. How such a dilemma would affect him and how would he solve it?
As someone who used to think Eon weren't too interested in making the films (which isn't necessarily wrong - we all have our own interests), I don't think there's any need to apologise. It was just as speculative as anyone who was supportive of Eon. It could have gone either way.
Regarding a billionaire bad guy: that's appropriate for the times, and most young people will not have seen Tomorrow Never Dies and anyone older may not even remember it.
I still hope BB sells so we get more frequent films, and there's no reason why a faster production cycle means they would be in any way shoddy.
Eon makes them fast (or at an expected pace) when they decide to make them, and those films have been full of plot holes (Skyfall) or run inefficiently (Spectre and No Time to Die). It's the years before it enters pre-production which slows them down.
The point is that Barbara received huge accolades from her peers in the industry for what she did; rising above any possible accusations of nepotism and putting her own bold stamp on Bond. Making it better than ever before. With all that said and done, it's not hard to imagine a lack of enthusiasm to either A) return to the old ways and simply churn out fun, light entertainment, or B) make something equally thematically weighty as the Craig era, but now possibly derivative (how many times can we make him fall in love, lose those around him, quit the job, go rogue, self-sacrifice? etc).
Sure, as you say though, this is just imagination, or speculation with no basis at best, though. And as you admit, you don't agree with her direction over the last twenty years so it's equally not hard to imagine a bias in your assessment.
The WSJ article, whilst definitely one-sided, does say it has over 20 sources so is apparently based more on what is actually happening rather than imagination.
That is a shocking article. Especially as 007 Road to a Million did so well and it is obviously what Amazon wants to do, and the second season is being or now has been filmed.
I came across this 'Masters in conversation' 'infomercial' a while back and everything seemed happy families.
In the WSJ article, I found this paragraph to be particularly telling: "Former Amazon executives have criticized the company’s approach to development, saying it is overly reliant on calculating risk—based on factors such as an actor’s past performance or what similar titles have done in the marketplace. The idea of casting an unknown in a lead role like Bond is hard to imagine at Amazon, they said."
Doesn't Amazon understand Connery was an unknown? As was Craig, for the most part. And they have had the biggest grossing films of all time. I wonder if ATJ has been Amazon's choice? "Based on factors such as an actor’s past performance or what similar titles have done in the marketplace," would seem to fit ATJ well.
I also wonder if there is a key factor in this relationship that isn't mentioned, distribution. Distribution to theatres and part financing has been a key part of the Bond films' business deals. Sony part financed and distributed, internationally, Bond from CR to Spectre.
For NTTD, MGM distributed the film in the USA, through its joint venture at the time with Annapurna (or domestically as US showbiz trades like to say) and Universal got to distribute it internationally. In the 2018 deal, Universal also signed on to distribute Bond26 - they can't be happy.
I really wonder if the big issue is actually distribution. Hollywood producer Amy Pascal is said to be good friends with Barbara Broccoli and while Pascal had to resign from Sony Pictures over the email hack, she is back at Sony and has been behind the success of the Sony Spiderman movies.
I don't know if these distribution deals have sunset clauses on them, but the Universal deal is now six years old and the Warner Bros, two years, and they might not get Bond27 for another six years (3 years till Bond26 and another 3 for Bond27).
Do the Broccolis want to box Amazon into the MGM USA-distribution-only space, and do a new international distribution deal with a Pascal led Sony?
Sure, but it is total speculation based on guesswork, which is what I'm saying.
I'm not keen on making up stuff about people, especially negative. She's spent her whole life working on this series, to accuse her of a lack of enthusiasm feels out of whack to me. I'm not sure how much more enthusiasm she needs to display.
Let's not forget why we're in this position with two companies at an impasse over this character: it's because Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman couldn't maintain their relationship and fell out spectacularly, and Saltzman disliked Broccoli so much that he sold his share to UA rather than to Cubby. It's thanks to them we're in this position, same with the hiatus after LTK.
The distribution matter is interesting indeed, but the WSJ article clearly deals with something else: the creative clash due to the way the Amazon executives see the franchise and most of all the character.
Ironically, one of them claims she has never seen Bond as a hero, which is not a wrong point of view considering Bond is more of a antihero, especially the literary version. Nevertheless, one can understand the issue is the reason why she thinks that way. Bond is a man, a womanizer and a professional killer. Typically the kind of combination making such a character the perfect target to justify radical changes in order to make all the frustrated people who hate him and everything he represents identify with another kind of model, the one they consider 'self-righteous' according to their own standards.
I will be honest. I've never been as worried about the future of the character as I'm right now. Sometimes, I see comments saying those people, whose ultimate dream is to destroy Bond, his myth and his legacy, are very few. But are they?
Comments
I honestly loved reading this article, more than a bit due to the number of folks in here and elsewhere incessantly blaming Eon for the delays. A few of you should probably own up to past statements instead of pivoting to another know-it-all pedestal and acting like you haven't been talking s hit for three years. 😊
"Have you read the contract?" Get their as ses, Barbara.
I hold my hand up to admit my frequent blaming of Eon for the delays. However I don't think the thread will appear in bold now.
Me too, but in my defence it was mostly in a jokey way. Still, you have a point.
This WSJ article seems slightly odd to me considering EON's announcement yesterday of the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang reboot with Amazon.
If the relationship was really that fraught and they were really at a stalemate over Bond, it seems odd they'd be happy to work with each other elsewhere. No?
Yep me too, I've always said that it seemed more likely that the hiatus was down to the relationship with Amazon than anything else, it's annoyed me when folks have decided it's because Broccoli doesn't have the hunger for it (that her dad had, is often the comparison) or that she's too in love with Craig etc. as if people can see into her head.
Thank you, was getting uncomfortable to read 😁
@HalfMonk HalfHitman I'm writing as someone who belong to those who maintained their faith in EON from the beginning, precisely because I couldn't blame them for something I didn't know anything about. After all, it's not like if they didn't have to face the concept of 'reinvention' in the past.
To be honest, my first reaction just after I finished reading the article was sadness. What is currently happening is not good for the franchise, and I'm sure many of those who blamed EON would have preferred not to. Perhaps I'm getting naive, but I tend to think people here genuinely love Bond, and sometimes passion can lead to such reactions. The fact the last film still remains divisive three years after its release probably doesn't help because no matter whether one loves it or hates it, we can understand now it will be Bond's last ride for a long time. I have no issue with NTTD (not necessarily a film I'd rewatch often but I don't hate it), but I can imagine why people who deeply dislike it just wish to move on quickly and see brand news stories involving the heroe they love. It's just human.
Do you see my point?
There can be a grain of truth in both though, surely? This is all just speculation at the end of the day.
It's clear that Barbara cares about legacy and wouldn't want some anti-art, tech bro, bean counting imbeciles barging in and tarnishing what her family stewarded. At the same time, she may not have the same energetic spark to pump out films as was once the case.
It's clear she doesn't have the same production-line mentality Cubby had for releasing pure, formulaic entertainment. It's why she was willing to wait for Craig to return on his own terms, rather than pressing ahead with a movie with a new actor. The Craig era was clearly her baby - hugely financially successful and, in the minds of many, more artistically meritorious than the somewhat 'disposable' popcorn adventures of yesteryear. I disagree with that sentiment and much prefer the original 62-02 run, but that's neither here nor there.
The point is that Barbara received huge accolades from her peers in the industry for what she did; rising above any possible accusations of nepotism and putting her own bold stamp on Bond. Making it better than ever before. With all that said and done, it's not hard to imagine a lack of enthusiasm to either A) return to the old ways and simply churn out fun, light entertainment, or B) make something equally thematically weighty as the Craig era, but now possibly derivative (how many times can we make him fall in love, lose those around him, quit the job, go rogue, self-sacrifice? etc).
I don't think there's much appetite to return to the classic formula given how much props they received for shaking it up, but at the same time, you can only shake it up so much within the established parameters of the character and get a different result. You can't shock the world with a Casino Royale repeatedly, as the impact of that film worked as a contrast to what audiences were already accustomed to. So where do they go if either option is considered equally derivative to those making it?
Amazon being expectedly shitty I don't think changes the likelihood that they fundamentally don't know where to take the series next.
I've always thought that BB may not be interested in making Bond (which is fair enough - we all have our own interests), and that she may find the idea of rebooting it again undesirable - particularly if the Craig era was her vision.
But I don't think there's any reason to apologize. It was all just as speculative as anything the Eon supporters said.
I'd still like her to sell so we can get films at a decent two to three years again (and there's no reason to imagine they would be any less insufficiently prepared as Spectre, disorganised as No Time to Die, or as plot-holed as Skyfall), and such a sale could well be possible even now.
On her reluctance to have a billionaire bad guy: That's appropriate for the times, yet she reportedly feels it will be a re-tread of Elliot Carver. Options: find a fresh way of presenting it; just do it again and remember Tomorrow Never Dies was thirty years ago and many viewers of the new film will not know about TND; or get someone else to make the film and worry about it.
There's the vague possibility that Amazon may sell their Bond rights and keep the rest of MGM, thereby recouping the money they spent.
Or this has all been a public game of Chess with Eon showing Amazon that they have teeth.
Interesting comment. From what BB said, the exercise mainly consists in having each new iteration of the chatacter in step with time, which means several parameters have to be considered (threats, social trends...).
Of course, there are patterns, but it doesn't necessarily mean the formula has become derivative. For example, I've often wondered how they could explore the concept of having Bond falling in love with another member of the double O section. A female colleague he's been working with for a long time, a woman he genuinely relies on and who turns out to be a traitor running for the enemy. How such a dilemma would affect him and how would he solve it?
Amazon doesn't have shares in EON. It's MGM they own.
As someone who used to think Eon weren't too interested in making the films (which isn't necessarily wrong - we all have our own interests), I don't think there's any need to apologise. It was just as speculative as anyone who was supportive of Eon. It could have gone either way.
Regarding a billionaire bad guy: that's appropriate for the times, and most young people will not have seen Tomorrow Never Dies and anyone older may not even remember it.
I still hope BB sells so we get more frequent films, and there's no reason why a faster production cycle means they would be in any way shoddy.
Eon makes them fast (or at an expected pace) when they decide to make them, and those films have been full of plot holes (Skyfall) or run inefficiently (Spectre and No Time to Die). It's the years before it enters pre-production which slows them down.
The point is that Barbara received huge accolades from her peers in the industry for what she did; rising above any possible accusations of nepotism and putting her own bold stamp on Bond. Making it better than ever before. With all that said and done, it's not hard to imagine a lack of enthusiasm to either A) return to the old ways and simply churn out fun, light entertainment, or B) make something equally thematically weighty as the Craig era, but now possibly derivative (how many times can we make him fall in love, lose those around him, quit the job, go rogue, self-sacrifice? etc).
Sure, as you say though, this is just imagination, or speculation with no basis at best, though. And as you admit, you don't agree with her direction over the last twenty years so it's equally not hard to imagine a bias in your assessment.
The WSJ article, whilst definitely one-sided, does say it has over 20 sources so is apparently based more on what is actually happening rather than imagination.
Nothing I speculated on disputes the article though, which is strictly regarding Broccoli's perception of Amazon.
That is a shocking article. Especially as 007 Road to a Million did so well and it is obviously what Amazon wants to do, and the second season is being or now has been filmed.
I came across this 'Masters in conversation' 'infomercial' a while back and everything seemed happy families.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMCJZfTDWs0
In the WSJ article, I found this paragraph to be particularly telling: "Former Amazon executives have criticized the company’s approach to development, saying it is overly reliant on calculating risk—based on factors such as an actor’s past performance or what similar titles have done in the marketplace. The idea of casting an unknown in a lead role like Bond is hard to imagine at Amazon, they said."
Doesn't Amazon understand Connery was an unknown? As was Craig, for the most part. And they have had the biggest grossing films of all time. I wonder if ATJ has been Amazon's choice? "Based on factors such as an actor’s past performance or what similar titles have done in the marketplace," would seem to fit ATJ well.
I also wonder if there is a key factor in this relationship that isn't mentioned, distribution. Distribution to theatres and part financing has been a key part of the Bond films' business deals. Sony part financed and distributed, internationally, Bond from CR to Spectre.
For NTTD, MGM distributed the film in the USA, through its joint venture at the time with Annapurna (or domestically as US showbiz trades like to say) and Universal got to distribute it internationally. In the 2018 deal, Universal also signed on to distribute Bond26 - they can't be happy.
For Bond27, MGM agreed in 2022 with Warner Bros to distribute in the USA together while Warner Bros distribute internationally.
I really wonder if the big issue is actually distribution. Hollywood producer Amy Pascal is said to be good friends with Barbara Broccoli and while Pascal had to resign from Sony Pictures over the email hack, she is back at Sony and has been behind the success of the Sony Spiderman movies.
I don't know if these distribution deals have sunset clauses on them, but the Universal deal is now six years old and the Warner Bros, two years, and they might not get Bond27 for another six years (3 years till Bond26 and another 3 for Bond27).
Do the Broccolis want to box Amazon into the MGM USA-distribution-only space, and do a new international distribution deal with a Pascal led Sony?
Sure, but it is total speculation based on guesswork, which is what I'm saying.
I'm not keen on making up stuff about people, especially negative. She's spent her whole life working on this series, to accuse her of a lack of enthusiasm feels out of whack to me. I'm not sure how much more enthusiasm she needs to display.
Let's not forget why we're in this position with two companies at an impasse over this character: it's because Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman couldn't maintain their relationship and fell out spectacularly, and Saltzman disliked Broccoli so much that he sold his share to UA rather than to Cubby. It's thanks to them we're in this position, same with the hiatus after LTK.
The distribution matter is interesting indeed, but the WSJ article clearly deals with something else: the creative clash due to the way the Amazon executives see the franchise and most of all the character.
Ironically, one of them claims she has never seen Bond as a hero, which is not a wrong point of view considering Bond is more of a antihero, especially the literary version. Nevertheless, one can understand the issue is the reason why she thinks that way. Bond is a man, a womanizer and a professional killer. Typically the kind of combination making such a character the perfect target to justify radical changes in order to make all the frustrated people who hate him and everything he represents identify with another kind of model, the one they consider 'self-righteous' according to their own standards.
I will be honest. I've never been as worried about the future of the character as I'm right now. Sometimes, I see comments saying those people, whose ultimate dream is to destroy Bond, his myth and his legacy, are very few. But are they?