In a full abba costume
3 Likes
3 Likes
Iāve felt for a long time that at least MGM was getting ready to sell. If Barbara and MGW want out too, the already likely 4 year wait for Bond 26 would likely be a lot longer. Considering the nightmare production that has been No Time To Die, I canāt imagine anyone would want to do this again immediately.
This thread has veered around to some interesting places, so Iāll throw in the old personal ten cents on possible paths for EON. While Iām sure EON would rather do business with anyone but MGM (I think the relationship with Pascal and Columbia/Sony was fruitful for all and showed what could be done), if MGM were to sell their half, I think EON would hold on even tighter, especially with other suitors throwing around ideas like āuniverseā and who knows what else. Not sure what relationship there is between EON, Fleming Publications etc, but I canāt help but think that EON would be very protective of how the character might be used in the future. And if it such that Bond the character/world has to be protected from being āMarvel-isedā, universed, āStars Warsādā āMission Impossible-cross-overedā, then I suspect that EON would see it as their responsibility to do so.
For some of the creative decisions that the company has taken over the years, inherently all the principals have never forgotten the goose and the golden egg and so I would imagine would push back on some of the more outlandish ideas.
Then again, I never thought Iād even hear the words āJames Bond Jrā or āJinx spin-offā so what the heck do I knowā¦ 
2 Likes
James Bond Jr and Jinx are reasons EON will protect Bond from that. They KNOW it wonāt work.
But the JINX thing was something they at least wanted to try.
Which isā¦ alarming.
In any event - with EON actually having to agree to do another Bond film, they could easily say: nah, not right now, not for the next couple of years, maybe not in the foreseeable future.
It is obvious that BB wants to do other films as well. And so far, she did not luck out with that. So why not take time to concentrate on this? ItĀ“s not like she needs the money from a future Bond film.
1 Like
Alarmingā¦possibly. But inevitable and necessaryā¦I am beginning to believe so.
My husband streams everything, and even with Netflix, HBO MAX, Amazon Prime, CBS ALL Access, and Disney+, I sometimes hear him say that he has nothing to watch. MeāI am content to wait for my order of restored Buster Keaton movies to arrive, and then watch them --more than once (Who can tire of THE GENERAL?). But I am not the futureāmy husband is.
Streaming demands product in a way that movie theatres have not since the glory days of Classical Hollywood. I see my husband sometimes ration a show so that he does not go through it too quickly. But eventually he finishes a program, and is ready for his next one.
Also, I saw this article two days ago:
I was struck by this sentence: āComing up, for instance, Warner Bros. will have two different film sagas involving Batman ā played by two different actors ā running at the same time.ā Really?
So an old Bond teamed with a new Bond (didnāt Batman do that once in a cartoon?) or Jinx with her own series is not an outrageous proposition. Anything to keep product flowingāespecially familiar product which keeps people subscribing. The motion picture as a stand-alone work of art is going to become rarer and rarerāa niche within the industry.
2 Likes
But then that was in a different environment altogether, early 2000s and coming off a run of āindustrialisedā Bond productions which followed a certain American approach in action hero depiction: camo-Guns&Ammo with a dinner jacket veneer. The formulation creed worked so well for Bond in the 90s because Bond films are a series of remakes and reiterations anyway - if in 2000 or 2002 plans had surfaced to āBondverseā the franchise along the Marvel pattern I donāt think thereād have been a huge backlash. It would just have been the next natural step for Bond.
Think āAgents of Smershā, āThe Leiter Filesā or ā00 Identityā - the market was certainly there, even for multiple-film crossovers in a āRise of Spectreā series. No doubt the philosophy behind the Jinx spinoff was the same as behind the continuation novels: either we do it or somebody else will.
We regard such ideas as lacking the core of Bond today. But thatās from a position where weāve got four, no, five films largely centred on the character. Right after DIE ANOTHER DAY that would have seemed hardly possible.
1 Like
Thatās saying having Two different versions simultaneously: Keaton in a connected universe, Pattinson in a single epic.
A studio can do both.
An independent production, as Bond is, can do the latter, a diet version of the former but definitely not both.
Remains to be seen how long the independent series really can stay that way.
Throughout the early years the studio connection to United Artists was a supportive one. They provided ever more funds for ever greater films. They even kept themselves off the risky adventure that was OHMSS. And later provided the money to get Connery back. UA, as far as we know, stood behind the series and carried the decisions Broccoli took for better or worse.
Ever since MGM became a āpartnerā they tried to get the series in a chokehold and wrestle it from Eon House. Should that pattern keep up with a buyer itās really hard to imagine how one proceeds from there. At some point you just have to face that digging in heels alone isnāt going to cut it. I could perfectly understand if the powers that be just decide to let things go their natural way.
1 Like
Absolutely.
And I never disliked the JINX character, actually, and would have been interested in what Stephen Frears would have done with that movie.
It seems as if EON really wanted to start a female spy franchise, got cold feet, tried it again with THE RHYTHM SECTION, got burned. BB will probably try again, but not for some time.
I wonder whether any studio these days actually would NOT consider milking any property in order to establish films, spin-offs, tv shows etc.
EON would have to stock up their manpower to keep all that under their banner - but maybe that is their secret plan all along: wait for MGM to fold, then rebuild EON from the inside as a multiverse player.
Would I like that?
No. I have trouble keeping up with Marvel, now Star Wars, and it kind of becomes a chore to watch everything just to really understand every nuance.
My hope for Bond would be more films on a more regular basis - but stand-alones only.
3 Likes
This is the place I am finding myself at. If Netflix/Apple/Disney were to buy MGM, why wouldnāt they try to maximize the product/revenue they could extract from their purchase. Shareholders would expect/demand it. Also, the streaming landscape is not going to become any less competitive in the future.
Sadly, I bet the logic will be that spin-offs will increase the audience for any stand-alone films.
2 Likes
I donāt think Bronson and EON parted on good terms did they?
As for Bronsan? I wouldnāt want him to come back. Heās so far removed from Bond as it is now. Heās left a decent legacy and even if he would come back for a villain role or even as a recurring part it wouldnāt feel right. Aside from The November Man what has he been up to?
Last time I saw Dalton was either Penny Dreadful or Doom Patrol. Heās fantastic as a performer but sadsly heās far too old. Lazenby too.
I know it would never happenā¦
When I listen to the bbc radio 4 adaptions of the original Ian flemming novels, I often think how nice it would be if they were able to make maybe TV movie versions of them, set in the 1950s, I mean, FAVTAK and TLD were written for a 007 TV series that never happenedā¦
Silver - I enjoy those greatly! And my first thought would be that theyāre a great format to keep any and all Bond cast members around in a āsecond lifeā sort of way. And yetā¦I love Toby Stephens as Bond and would hate to lose him. If anyone bears a passing resemblance to Hoagy Carmichael, itās him!!! And thatās on the radioā¦
1 Like