So it seems all the posts decrying Eon as lazy and uninterested were a touch judgey and presumptuous. It turns out they are protecting the films we love against the Disneyfication of Bond: who knew?
8 Likes
That would mean though that the working relationship has totally broken down, irreparably. I do think this article was briefed by EONs side. Possibly in the hope that there will be a shake up at Amazon and personnel are changed⊠It looks like a power play to be honest. One which could end horribly.
4 Likes
BB does have a rep for how protective she is over her parentâs work.
âItâs up to Barbara, itâs not the X-Factor!â - Sam Mendes
5 Likes
Itâs probably the most likely explanation that Eon initiated this article, also because they seem to be the party which would need a restart and a possible change of guard at Amazon. Sadly, that would also emphasise the fact Amazon isnât on the same page. They might indulge BB for a time with other projects - but if these suddenly started to run into obstacles I wouldnât be too surprised.
6 Likes
And also that they look at the world differently, and speak a different language.
The problem is humouring execs with a different world view. Where/what is the common ground that you correctly recommend they find? One side want to produce an artwork (if not a work of art), and the other side wants content aligned with what the algorithm indicates will be popular. One side was raised to value taste and discernment; the other to value data analysis. Just as analytics have changed professional sports, so algorithms are changing movie making.
But do they have enough power, and what if their strongest power is resistance? Heck, I will (automatically) renew my Amazon Prime subscription at the end of this month. I will choose whether or not to watch Eonâs next offering.
I think it might be more than a phase. It is becoming a controlling worldview in many areas of life.
But with algorithms weighing in on one side, it is a power struggle like none before it.
Agreed.
6 Likes
So is the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang remake a guinea pig to test the Amazon relationship before Bond 26 moves forward?
6 Likes
I hate the algorithms as a tool to decide how to tell a story.
But I also hated it when executives claimed only they know how to tell a story.
So, nothing has changed. The money people dictate. Only now they base it on audience reaction. Which actually might be better than âI am the boss so you obey me!â
And make no mistake: Eon always wanted to earn money. They also listened to audience reactions (cash register at the box office).
A work of art might have accidentally occurred. But the huge monetary success was the real art.
I believe BB is not used to going against an opponent who actually is as tough or even tougher.
6 Likes
A solid piece of craftsmanship is perhaps more like it. As for Disneyfication of Bond - that train surely must have passed Newcastle around five in the afternoon - afternoon 1968 that is.
I get how this is a sensitive topic for most of us, me included. A topic where we instinctively tend to side with Eon against the evil forces of the AI overlords and their two or three zillionaire masters. But the observable facts of the past are simply that Eon has always been in the business of selling tickets and stuff. And if thereâs been an artistic aspiration in the past thatâs certainly not happened by accident. But the raison dâĂȘtre of the show has been money, not art.
We shouldnât dupe ourselves itâs been a noble pursuit or some kind of âauthentic Bondâ - or authentic art for that matter - thatâs been front and centre of Eonâs every waking hour. Eon is an entertainment enterprise selling a product. Thatâs happened according to a distinctive vision of Bond. But always with a mind to aim their product at the sweet spot of our entertainment environment at any given time.
As such, Eonâs aim is no different from Amazonâs; the difference is in the approach. But some of the past results went through various iterations of cooking-by-committee and I doubt I could spot the difference had some of these decisions been taken by algorithm instead. It may amount to blasphemy, but every Bond film of the past has been a compromise.
And so will be every future Bond film.
EDIT: @secretagentfan beat me to it, shorter and more concise, as per usual.
5 Likes
My optimism for the future of the series, already diminishing, has dipped further after reading that. At least there are 25 entries in the series to enjoy, anything more at this point, Iâm just going to take as a bonus.
I havenât agreed with much of Eonâs decisions since 2006, but I had always believed that Eon and particularly a Broccoli were vital to cinematic Bond.
However, itâs clear to me now that that belief was established based on the genius and mythic-esqu legacy of Cubby, not Barbara. If this article is accurate, my sympathy isnât with Eon, and I think itâs time for them to sell, rather than hold cinematic Bond hostage in stubborn arrogance.
Iâm not a big fan of Amazon generally, but to think that they, one of the biggest companies in the world, certainly better run than their previous business partners, are âfân idiotsâ when they havenât even produced a single film under this partnership, is wrong.
Iâm not a LotR fan, so I canât attest to quality, but Amazon certainly seem to put money behind their projects. And unless Iâm understanding incorrectly, Eon still has veto powers, so itâs a matter of them actually working with their partners who have put the money on the table.
As mentioned, the article points out that Cubby sold hair dryers before Bond. Yet thereâs such an apparent arrogance and condescension about Amazon, that sells odds and ends, housing Bond, apparently some sophisticated, high end brand (interesting that I never knew, when I fell in love with the series watching exciting stunts, interesting gadgets, beatuiful locations, and smart quips, how exclusive and high brow this brand supposedly was, mustâve gone over my head).
Cubby worked and built Bond. Barbara grew up with it and had it handed to her. There seems to be an ingrained snobbish arrogance about the brand thatâs come tothe surface over the last 20 years. It doesnât come across as protectiveness of the brand to me, but entitled snobbishness, and is very off-putting.
So much is made of Eon keeping creative control and say over casting. They struck gold in casting Craig. However, their decisions, for the most part (for me), have been iffy-to-queationable at best since CR, almost 20 years ago.
They seem worried working with an âalgorithmicâ centric partner, but frankly, Iâd probably trust that more than whatever group within Eon has come up with many of their âboldâ creative decisions over the last 20 years.
âAlgorithmâ is a dirty word, but Eon has been trend following, not setting, for 20 years. Much the same thing.
It seems that Eon/Barbara is toxic and prepared to sabotage the partnership. I would now gladly welcome news of them selling.
I care about Bond as a fan; not as a family âbirthrightâ belonging to Barbara.
3 Likes
Itâs funny - I actually had the opposite reaction and am more optimistic.
Amazon wanting to create a Bondverse or whatever the hell they would do if run amok?
Not good.
Eon being completely disinterested in Bond as we, including myself, have been assuming the last couple of years?
Not good.
Eon holding the line against this huge corporation in order to keep delivering to us what has worked since '63?
Iâm re-energized and fully on board.
10 Likes
That must be frustrating, but at least you were dealing with a human arguing approach rather than an algorithm presenting data. Howard Hawks had a disaster with THE LAND OF THE PHARAOHS. Took time off, and went to live in Europe. When he decided to make a movie again, he approached Jack Warner with RIO BRAVO. Warner said no, arguing that no one wanted to see a Western. When Hawks came back with John Wayne as the lead, Warner changed his mind, and had a huge success for the studio. You cannot change an algorithmâs mind.
Better? Like listening to the audience after THE LAST JEDI, and coming up with the trainwreck of THE RISE OF SKYWALKER?
What I intended by using the term âartworkâ in opposition to âwork of art.â The word âcraftâ even went through my mind as I was composing.
I do not think that the raison dâetre was an either/or situation, but rather an and. Eon wanted to make money, tell a good story, and do so with artistry. An algorithm (and those beholden to it) only knows from data.
I do not think anyone is doing that. The rehiring of Connery at whatever the cost was a blatant cash grabâbut done with artistry, and produced, as we all know, a masterpiece of 1970âs cinema. Could an algorithm have produced DAF? (Ducking)
The difference is in more than just the approach. Amazon wants to sell dispensables, which, once dispensed with, causes the consumer to come back for more dispensibles.
Eon wants the consumer to come back as well, but also has skin in the game about producing something that contributes to a legacy/tradition. Algorithms could not care less about legacyâor even if they are right or wrongâthey just keep crunching data.
Agreed, but they were compromises arising from disagreement between two sets of human actors, both equipped (hopefully) with the abilities to discern and to reason. I disagree with you and @secretagentfan (if I am understanding your arguments correctly) that there is no significant difference between yesteryearâs producers and todayâs implacable algorithm-besotted Amazonians (who would make great Bond villains, or, at the least, henchpersons).
I wonder if you would have the same amount of trust/belief in the algorithm when one employed by an insurance company decided that a procedure you or a family member required was unnecessary/out-of-network.
Why is it that when a woman stands up for principles, she becomes toxic? Shouldnât the sentence (at the least) have been: âIt seems that Eon/Barbara/Michael are toxic and prepared to sabotage the partnershipâ?
6 Likes
6 Likes
But there is no difference, really.
This is not the same as talking to an AI on a hotline.
Amazon or Netflix or any other streamer will argue based on the results of their algorithms, just like former studio bosses argued based on being the boss/having experience/just knowing in their guts how to tell a story.
Or laying out the results of marketing research and test screenings.
The tool has changed, not the method.
And Eon is not fighting the bad overlords who donât understand Bond here, even if that article suggests that framing.
Letâs be realistic here: of course Amazon wants to get as much as they can out of Bond.
But Eon can just say: no tv show, only a theatrical series of movies.
Amazon then will say: okay, we think these guys are good casting choices, based on the results of our algorithm for popular types of actors.
Eon can say: nah, we think this guy is perfect and we want him.
Amazon wonât say: absolutely not, then we rather donât want to finance you. Just like they wonât say: either a Moneypenny prequel show or we wonât release the next Bond.
They want the next Bond. Eon right now doesnât seem to want to give one to them unless only Eon can make the decisions.
And thatâs a problem.
3 Likes
This is about a viewership/streaming algorithm. I give it a lot less thought and importance than I would/do insurance companies use.
Barbara is the face of Eon. The article is about Barbara and Eon. It quotes friends of Barbara and attributes things said to Barbara.
2 Likes
EON is used to being the savior of MGM. MGM only stayed alive because of EON and the Bond franchise, so they had quite a bit of power. This current EON regime has never had to deal with a studio that was both financially stable and not in any way beholden to the powers that be at EON.
Amazon doesnât need EON in the slightest. If they make a Bond movie or donât make a Bond movie, Amazon will keep on raking in the billions.
9 Likes
We will disagree on this. In my experience, people arguing from experience/instinct are less rigid in their thinking than those who argue from the algorithm and what it recommends. The algorithm provides analysis and course of actionâit is a package deal.
I believe it is advisable never to give in to algorithm thinking, since algorithms have the biases of the people who created them, and cannot be argued with. Humans are reduced to presenters of algorithm directions.
She is the face of Eon, but not its only powerâshe was presented the Thalberg Award jointly with Michael Wilson. What Eon is doing is standing up for principles, and you referred to that behavior as toxic. What is toxic about being principled?
You said that Eonâs decisions have not sat well with you. Okay. What seems dubious to me is the leap from your disagreement/disappointment in Eonâs choices to now adding â/Barbaraâ to âEon,â and declaring âEon/Barbara is toxic.â
2 Likes
Iâm confused as to what âprinciplesâ Eon are apparently standing up for, beyond Amazon not being a good fit because, as the article paint, they sell products and have a complex structure that focuses on data and algorithms and arenât giving Eon the âsoft touch and deferenceâ.
What is the difference between data/algorithms these days (in entertainment), versus focus groups and trend analysis of the past? Star Wars was a huge hit, so Cubby and his team saw the trend and data of what the audiences liked in the moment, and decided to make Moonraker. Wasnât that using the data of the day to make and dictate creative decisions to cater to the audience of the day?
Quotes used are from the article being discussed.
- âFor much of her career, Broccoli has made those calls with her stepbrother, 82-year-old Michael Wilson. She has emerged more recently as the primary steward of Bond as Wilson nears retirement.â
Wilson is barely mentioned beyond this (the extent of negativity attributed to him is that he âcomplained to friends that he couldnât land a meeting with anyone at Amazon above an âL6ââ). Hense my talking about âBarbaraâ - she is literally the focal point of the article being discussed. If Michael was the focus Iâd be saying âEon/Michaelâ etc.
- âShe has told friends she doesnât trust algorithm-centric Amazon with a character she helped to mythologize through big-screen storytelling and gut instinctâ
- âTo friends, Broccoli has characterized her thoughts on Amazon this way: âThese people are fâ idiots.ââ
- âBroccoli doesnât want to make a new Bond movie with Amazon.â
- âBroccoli has complained that Amazon isnât a good home for Bond, since the companyâs core business is selling everything from toilet paper to vacuumsâa perspective Amazon executives find unfair. But since she makes the creative calls that come firstâscript, casting, storyâBroccoli can hold Bond hostage from Amazon for as long as she sees fit.â
Doesnât trust the business partner (based on what? Because their core business is selling products? I doubt the team in charge of the website/marketplace is in charge of their entertainment branch); insults them and their intelligence; an apparent refusal or lack of interest to work with them, despite holding veto power over decisions she doesnât agree with.
- âSome executives at MGM were concerned that Bond and other titles would be given at-home launches in an era of ascendant streaming services like Amazon Prime Video.
Before agreeing to the deal, MGM made sure that Amazon was committed to releasing Bond on the big screen, a critical point for Broccoli, who waited out 18 months of Covid-19 lockdowns to play âNo Time to Dieâ in theaters. Amazon has held firm to its commitment to release Bond in theaters, should a new movie come together.â
Ok, so one of their main concerns, Bond being launched on streaming, was addressed before the agreement. Great, no problem going forward then, move on.
- âBroccoli and Wilson had been looped in on the deal before it was announced. Broccoli had reservations, but didnât want to complicate what many in Hollywood viewed as a massive payout for MGMâs ownersâplus, she and her family would retain final say over all creative matters, including who plays Bond.â
So these reservations could have been raised before the deal, but were willingly held back to get MGM a payout. Now these reservations are out in public and are causing an impass in the partnership. Yet, again, itâs pointed out, that they still have veto powers over creative decisions.
- âDespite their dreams of Bond spinoffs and reimaginings, Amazon executives were more clear-eyed after the MGM deal closed that any such ideas would require Broccoliâs blessing.â
Sounds like Amazon actually accept Barbara and Eonâs veto powers and that any âBond universeâ ideas wonât come to pass.
- âThe Bond reality show was in development before the MGM sale to Amazon, with Broccoliâs backing.â
This is interesting and I wasnât aware of this fact. The reality show has often been used to point out the perils of the Amazon influence on the brand, yet it was in development prior to the deal. If it was Eon pre-Amazon deal that endorsed a reality show then Iâm not sure why they are now overly concerned about the franchise being milked (for what itâs worth, I wouldnât like any spin off series or film).
- âAmazon executives have griped that the showâs first season lost a significant share of viewers after six minutes.â
Fair enough on Amazonâs part. Outside of the main Bond series, what has Eon produced for film or TV that has been a success? Amazon spent a lot of money on the deal, and would spend a lot on a future film, I dont think its unreasonable for them to want to ensure financial performance through whatever analysis they want. Maybe MGM couldâve done with shaper financial scrutiny.
When I say toxic Iâm referring to their role in the relationship with Amazon. I donât see how the attitude of Eon and Barbara (through quotes attributed to her) painted in the article isnât rude, stubborn and not conducive to a partnership.
As others have said, itâs hard to imagine friends and associates of Barbara, Wilson and Eon to discuss their thoughts and give quotes without the knowledge or approval of Eon.
The article certainly paints Amazon as a big, convoluted company, but beyond a convoluted corporate structure, I fail to see evidence of the concerns, fears and frustrations of Eon. In fact, it sounds like Amazon are actually attempting to facilitate the relationship:
- âAmazon more recently enlisted the help of another production executive, Courtenay Valenti, who is now known as the âBarbara whispererâ within Amazon. In addition to having a background in film development, Valenti is herself a bridge between the old Hollywood and the new.â
One of the main problems it sounds like Eon, Barbara, and, ok, Wilson, have is that they are of the âold schoolâ and are struggling to adapt to the new Hollywood. Ironic, since we always hear âis Bond relevantâ in the modern world, that it sounds like Eon is unable to operate in it.
The reality of the situation is Amazon are partners. Eon holds creative veto powers. So, if they want to create new Bond, they have to learn to collaborate, otherwise, they have the right to sit on the brand and do nothing with it.
As a fan, Iâm content either way, there are 25 films to enjoy, but Iâd like to see a few entertaining hours of new Bond every 2-5 years. For that to happen they can either learn to work in the new world (while still having creative control, mind), or sell.
Again, aside from difficulty in getting meetings - a change from âold schoolâ to ânew schoolâ Hollywood, what evidence is there in the article to actually support their concerns and frustrations?
And more to the point, what âprinciplesâ (beyond wanting âthe soft touch and deference that defined the old-school studio systemâ) are Eon meant to be fighting and standing up for?
4 Likes
After letting this story digest Iâm now leaning to this side as well. How long are we going to be waiting? I donât know. But the integrity of Bond as a character and brand does need to be protected. I want movies as much as anyone, but they have to be done properly - especially with a relaunch as important as this.
7 Likes
You havenât dealt with studio executives or producers then 
No. They want to decide the way they could decide in earlier times and apparently now find out what countless creatives (yes, us writers, too) have always encountered: a stronger force making decisions.
Even if in times like these people love to be on a âteamâ without looking at the cold hard facts, just siding against a perceived enemy, it would be wrong to see this conflict as the noble female warrior defending her art against the cold conglomerate with deeply impersonal methods only to make more cash.
To be clear: I am grateful for Eon to protect the legacy against many wrong ideas in the past, and I want them to keep protecting Bond.
But that does not mean using their power to keep Bond buried, just because they are unwilling to engage with the new partner. Judging from their decisions in the Craig era, there were many which I would have liked to see Bond protected from. It certainly would be wise to inject new blood into that process. We all felt that Eon is on auto-pilot, circling around themselves for many years now, havenât we?
And again, algorithms are just one market research tool, fallible as every test screening. But even the streamers employ creative executives with interesting ideas. And they all want the films to succeed.
Calling films content might irk Eon, but that one word is just a placeholder, and really, was Bond ever not content for Eonâs endeavour? The 007 store is their ongoing cash cow, and they donât feel ashamed of it either, despite selling lots of crazily overpriced dreck.
8 Likes
Perfectly argued. I fully agree.
3 Likes