If EON do sell the franchise then who should take over?

Sorry if there's a thread already, I genuinely couldn't find one.

Anyway, Bond 25 is coming, and there are rumours (which MI6-HQ.com have said there may be truth too) that BB and MGW are thinking off selling up afterwards. Now I don't want it to be true and hope it isn't, but worst case scenario, who would be our realistic and preferred choices of studio to take over? Especially interested to hear from our more industry knowledgeable members on this.

Personally I just don't like the idea of it going to Disney. I really don't want Bond to be milked dry and become all bland and Marvelised. I want a studio that could somehow keep the magic feeling around the films that the Broccoli's have managed to for 50 years. Not sure who that would be though.
«134

Comments

  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    Warner Bros., and have Nolan at the helm of a trilogy.
  • Posts: 12,317
    Warner Bros., and have Nolan at the helm of a trilogy.

    Nolan would be a brilliant way of reassuring everyone that things are still in safe hands and I'd love a Bond film from him as he's pretty much the king of blockbusters, but I think his next film being a spy film makes it less likely. He seems to have got bored of waiting to be asked and instead is making his own, and I don't know if he'd want to do Bond once he's done that, as ever since Batman finished he seems to like challenging himself and hopping between genres.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,302
    Let's see how Universal does with this one.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 8,658
    Selling the franchise is most probably a non-starter. It's a longtime family business, the current owners are wildly and consistently successful. Family members have key roles in the productions and are waiting in the wings. It's their legacy and Cubby Broccoli's legacy.

    On the other hand I'm not against focused Bond film experiments like a planned story arc across films by a director like Christopher Nolan or otherwise. Or period pieces back to the 50s or 60s.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    Warner Bros., and have Nolan at the helm of a trilogy.

    Nolan isn’t going to direct a trilogy of Bond films.
  • Posts: 4,263
    I’m unsure about ‘selling’ as it’s the Broccoli inheritance and I can’t see the producers willing to sell.

    However.........I do think Eon should move to a streaming platform with Bond 26. Netflix or Apple.
  • Posts: 11,842
    Selling the franchise is most probably a non-starter. It's a longtime family business, the current owners are wildly and consistently successful. Family members have key roles in the productions and are waiting in the wings. It's their legacy and Cubby Broccoli's legacy.

    On the other hand I'm not against focused Bond film experiments like a planned story arc across films by a director like Christopher Nolan or otherwise. Or period pieces back to the 50s or 60s.

    I'd prefer Bond to stay within the family. I doubt anyone other than EON would be quite as protective of Cubby's legacy.
    I think a Bond series run by someone else would increase the likelihood of a generic action/superhero style CGI fest. Then there's casting. I could see anyone other than Barbara or Michael caving in and casting a flavor of the month actor as Bond regardless of their suitability for the role. Chris Pratt, Chris Pine, Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr, etc etc

    In my personal opinion, so many of the newer re-boots/remakes of popular films pale in comparison. There was a Robocop remake few people seem to remember, an infamous Ghostbusters failure, Robin Hood, even the new Men in Black film is apparently no comparison to the original. I'd hate to see Bond suffer a similar fate, and Eon are the only ones, IMO who can keep Cubby's legacy intact.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 1,644
    What about a British consortium buying Eon's share of Bond? Pinewood Group Ltd (along with some investors). Pinewood has an historical link with Bond so it would make sense if Pinewood studios bought Eon's share (via company Danjaq).

    I don't know if MGM would ever want to sell its 50 percent stake in Bond. Ideally Eon would own it all that way if they want to sell they can sell the entire thing. MGM's share complicates any sale. It's possible MGM can never sell its stake in Bond out of fear of going out of business. The studio has faced bankruptcy multiple times so without Bond who knows what would happen!

    Imho there's more chance of the Bond actor remaining British if Eon's share was owned by British investors. If Disney or Warner Bros bought Eon's share and convinced MGM to sell its share there's a much higher chance of an American/Canadian actor playing Bond (with a British accent).

    On the subject of Netflix - if they owned the Bond franchise it would make sense to release the films in the cinema, not on their streaming app. Netflix's film 'Roma' had a limited theatrical release before streaming. Bond 26 would have to get a full worldwide theatrical release and go to Netflix streaming three months later. I think Netflix could be an ideal alternative to the other US studios but MGM's stake probably complicates the matter.

  • Posts: 12,198
    I can't envisage Eon selling anytime soon? But? If they do I can only see Disney swallowing it up!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,368
    Sitting on something this unimaginably profitable, making tons of money off the films, merchandising, ... even without a new entry ready for release, EON would be worse than an insane asylum if they put 007 up for sale.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 12,317
    I’m unsure about ‘selling’ as it’s the Broccoli inheritance and I can’t see the producers willing to sell.

    However.........I do think Eon should move to a streaming platform with Bond 26. Netflix or Apple.

    I really hate the idea of that to be honest. Even ignoring my personal preferences, I think Bond is too special for a streaming service. A new Bond film coming out in cinemas really feels like an event. Streaming wouldn't be the same imo.
    Selling the franchise is most probably a non-starter. It's a longtime family business, the current owners are wildly and consistently successful. Family members have key roles in the productions and are waiting in the wings. It's their legacy and Cubby Broccoli's legacy.

    I always thought this too but the people behind this site have said that unfortunately there may be truth to those rumours, so I do think we need to brace ourselves for the possibility. This isn't some gossip rag saying this, it's a site run by fans like us. They don't want it to be true either and wouldn't say anything if they hadn't heard about it from sources they trust. I hope as much as anyone that their sources are wrong but I do think it's possible, Barbara seems more and more interested in non Bond stuff nowadays anyway and it might be that the kids have no interest in taking over.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 1,644
    The sale of Bond is a lot more complicated than Eon deciding to sell their stake to the highest bider. MGM's 50 percent stake is a major obstacle for any studio wanting to own Bond. Why would they want to share profits/decisions/casting etc with MGM? Unlikely. 100 percent ownership would be a far more attractive proposition but if MGM refuse to sell their share it's never going to happen. If Netflix offered MGM some crazy sum, I suppose its possible. Most things in life have a price.

    My guess is if Netflix owned Bond (50 percent or 100 percent) there would be one condition on the purchase - all future Bond films must be released theatrically. I can't imagine Eon nor MGM wanting Bond to go 'streaming only'.

    New owners of Bond could be the best way forward for the franchise. If Babs and MG feel they've taken Bond as far as they can, time for change? New owners, new vision. Could be quite interesting. :)






  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2019 Posts: 4,147
    This may sound ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel Craig comes on board, as a major stakeholder, after his stint as Bond is over. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it wouldn't be a shocker.
  • mattjoesmattjoes matthaujoes
    Posts: 4,222
    Let's buy it ourselves. Then we could retroactively satisfy our various whims and eccentricities. We could digitally erase Kara from TLD, or destroy all prints of the Brosnan era.
  • Posts: 11,842
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Let's buy it ourselves. Then we could retroactively satisfy our various whims and eccentricities. We could digitally erase Kara from TLD, or destroy all prints of the Brosnan era.

    On the contrary, I'd prefer if we digitally added Kara to all the other Bond films. It would be far more amusing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,302
    Let's digitally add Maud Adams to all the Bond films...it's a shorter project!
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2019 Posts: 4,010
    EON aren't selling, it was mere rumour and just because this very site said they couldn't discount doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    This is mostly fuelled here by those unhappy with the current direction and want the film they've imagined in their head or had in a wet dream.

    The entitled attitude of some is beyond belief at times.

    I'm pretty sure Barbara as plenty of years left making these films and Greg will step up to the plate when his Dad can no longer be involved.

    I don't think some of this faction that want a Nolan + Warner type buy up realise, for one thing Nolan isn't going to stay attached forever, he's not the type of film maker to do that, he's like a shark, he needs to keep moving.

    Also having a huge studio conglomerate in control and not the family that nutured it from it conception, will no doubt lead to a dilution of the brand, the likely Amercanisation of a British icon and god knows what spin offs.

    Do you honestly think a big studio won't see the opportunities they can exploit like Disney has Marvel and Star Wars.

    No Bond doesn't have the same size universe to capitilise in the same way that those franchises but that won't stop a studio executive who has none of the history and care for the legacy of the character from exploiting it.

    I hope it never happens in my life time and EON continue to nuture for years to come.
    Whenever a blip or something about the series isn't to people liking the knee jerk reaction is Barbara should sell, well she bloody well shouldn't and those advocating aren't much fans of this series in my view.
  • Posts: 2,357
    Eon are not selling.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    Shardlake wrote: »
    EON aren't selling, it was mere rumour and just because this very site said they couldn't discount doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    This is mostly fuelled here by those unhappy with the current direction and want the film they've imagined in their head or had in a wet dream.

    The entitled attitude of some is beyond belief at times.

    I'm pretty sure Barbara as plenty of years left making these films and Greg will step up to the plate when his Dad can no longer be involved.

    I don't think some of this faction that want a Nolan + Warner type buy up realise, for one thing Nolan isn't going to stay attached forever, he's not the type of film maker to do that, he's like a shark, he needs to keep moving.

    Also having a huge studio conglomerate in control and not the family that nutured it from it conception, will no doubt lead to a dilution of the brand, the likely Amercanisation of a British icon and god knows what spin offs.

    Do you honestly think a big studio won't see the opportunities they can exploit like Disney has Marvel and Star Wars.

    No Bond doesn't have the same size universe to capitilise in the same way that those franchises but that won't stop a studio executive who has none of the history and care for the legacy of the character from exploiting it.

    I hope it never happens in my life time and EON continue to nuture for years to come.
    Whenever a blip or something about the series isn't to people liking the knee jerk reaction is Barbara should sell, well she bloody well shouldn't and those advocating aren't much fans of this series in my view.

    Yes. Yes. Yes.
  • Posts: 12,317
    Shardlake wrote: »
    EON aren't selling, it was mere rumour and just because this very site said they couldn't discount doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    This is mostly fuelled here by those unhappy with the current direction and want the film they've imagined in their head or had in a wet dream.

    The entitled attitude of some is beyond belief at times.

    I'm pretty sure Barbara as plenty of years left making these films and Greg will step up to the plate when his Dad can no longer be involved.

    I don't think some of this faction that want a Nolan + Warner type buy up realise, for one thing Nolan isn't going to stay attached forever, he's not the type of film maker to do that, he's like a shark, he needs to keep moving.

    Also having a huge studio conglomerate in control and not the family that nutured it from it conception, will no doubt lead to a dilution of the brand, the likely Amercanisation of a British icon and god knows what spin offs.

    Do you honestly think a big studio won't see the opportunities they can exploit like Disney has Marvel and Star Wars.

    No Bond doesn't have the same size universe to capitilise in the same way that those franchises but that won't stop a studio executive who has none of the history and care for the legacy of the character from exploiting it.

    I hope it never happens in my life time and EON continue to nuture for years to come.
    Whenever a blip or something about the series isn't to people liking the knee jerk reaction is Barbara should sell, well she bloody well shouldn't and those advocating aren't much fans of this series in my view.

    Don't get me wrong I'm very happy with the current direction (loved the last two Craig films) and agree with every word on why it shouldn't happen. But MI6 chiming in to say they've heard the same on twitter has me slightly worried. The site has been wrong before (I remember back in the day before Craig was cast they reported that Pierce was likely going to do one more after all) but I think them saying that is still noteworthy because I doubt they want it to happen either, so I doubt they'd have said anything if they didn't trust their sources. It's been a while since they mentioned it but maybe @JamesPage or someone could chime in with exactly what they heard and how trustworthy the source is?
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 1,644
    I'm making a prediction.....

    If No Time To Die makes over one billion worldwide, Disney will make an offer on Bond. I think it will be too tempting. Only one modern era Bond film has made over a billion - Skyfall (comparing old Bond films with new ones seems a bit unfair due to inflation). There's no guarantee NTTD will hit that magic number, but you never know. Another billion dollar Bond film would attract Disney and other studios. And it would be the ideal time for the purchase. Bond 26 is likely to be a new Bond actor, perhaps Chris Nolan directing? It makes sense for Disney to buy Bond if they can start fresh.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Éric Serra & Bill Conti!
    Posts: 5,440
    As much as I have fond memories of the classic Disney animation films, today it’s a company that stands for a whole lot of unoriginal remakes of their own works. Can’t say I want them to take over Bond. Are the Broccoli’s really considering to sell it or is it all a bunch of click bait?
  • Posts: 12,198
    I am just going to continue to enjoy the here and now, and worry about that another day.
  • Posts: 8,571
    Alright me and @peter will do it

    I hear he has a brotha... I got a brotha too small world.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 2,683
    What makes Bond special is the sartorial quality of the franchise. Something a corporation cannot deliver the same way. There are the Albert Brocccoli's EoN Bond films and then there are (there will be?) all the others, apocryphal ones.

    No matter how and when, good or bad, a non-EoN Bond film would be an apocryphal Bond film.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    Interesting topic. First of all, if there are so many people in here who honestly think this won't be happening, then perhaps it is good to come up with available scenarios where this actually could be the case. Or to even be daring to try to find these little cracks in the, what most of here consider, concrete walls of EON's office at 138 Piccadilly Street, Mayfair, London (and Danjaq Inc., Santa Monica).

    Because make no mistake, those small cracks are there. Not just from a financial perspective, as I laid out here, https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/bond-confronting-changing-media/. but also from other perspectives, like for instance legislative bottlenecks and organizational weaknesses.

    Many fans laid out the beauty that EON Productions still is very much an independent family business. And obviously that fact will give you leverage at the negotiating table (for instance in finding distributors for your films). Alas, the biggest advantages are slowly being swallowed by its disadvantages: the fragmented organizational structure in which the key stakeholders pinch and grab at the James Bond-franchise. It's increasingly difficult to simply……start pre-production on a Bond-film these days. And in the case of Bond even more so when compared to competing action film franchises. That has always been the case, but since the actual production time has increased substantially in the past years to around 7,5 months, perhaps even 8 months taking into account NTTD, things like careful planning becomes way more important. And I'm not talking about the kind of planning that EON prefers: around 1 year pre-production and then principla photography (QOS, SP). It's too short a time.

    EON really has to plan ahead with a long-term strategy. Otherwise, sooner or later, these things happen: https://variety.com/2019/film/news/disney-long-term-deal-occupy-pinewood-studios-1203327788/. It's inevitable in blockbuster-land. Many fans can say "Aaah well, let them do it on their own terms", but thinking like that in today's Hollywood climate also shows a bit of recklessness and arrogance with regard to your competition.

    So yes, I can be in favor of the Bond-brand to be sold, but only when certain conditions are applied. Since EON can't seem to deliver consistently critically acclaimed Bond-films, regardless of the Bond tag, and EON themselves seem to become rather tired and lacklustre in making critically acclaimed Bond-films in a different, better adjusted production timeframe (for example: increasing the time of pre-production to at least 2 years), it is perhaps time to think about the greater good, that even James Bond can outgrow a Bond producer when it comes to demand from the public. You have heard Barbara Broccoli herself at times: "We all grew a bit tired of it all". That is off course possible, and I understand this feeling. But it is a useless and counter-productive notion if you are a film producer of.....pure blockbuster entertainment vehicles.

    A. My first wish however would be that EON keeps their 50% share (via Danjaq) of the Bond-brand. Regardless of how the Bond producers currently think of the Bond-franchise, their knowledge is extremely pivotal for the success of future Bond-films. So at first, I really do not wish a big company like Universal Pictures (Comcast) or Warner Brothers to buy out EON Productions. No way! What I do wish is that such big players, perhaps even enhanced into a consortium, like UniversalApple or UniversalAmazon, try to completely buy out the incompetent other half that owns Bond: MGM. And with it Annapurna and United Artists Releasing. I seriously think if we could destroy that bunch of Hedgefund millionaires at MGM, guys who have no idea what blockbuster filmmaking is all about, then that would be a first blessing for me. Just imagine if you have A. EON/Danjaq maintaining ownership of the Bond-brand, and B. Universal Pictures (Comcast) completely owning the other half of the Bond-brand, you get a way healthier situation, both management-wise and financially. No need to first negotiate for months for global marketing/distribution deals. It would be my desired outcome, and I think that would create a more stable situation for our beloved secret agent James Bond 007.

    However, it is also a widely know fact that this is what former CEO of MGM Gary Barber more or less wanted to do. He wanted to sell MGM completely. Now let me be clear, if such negotiations will take place again, then it does mean in the short-term that no Bond-film will appear in cinemas soon. But my adage is always: Better delay Bond in the short-term, than destroy its long-term prospects. However, this vision, which in a way was shared by Gary Barber, didn't go through. The board of MGM, mostly hedgefund junkies, didn't like the idea. And it has to be said, that they were, how weird that may sound, supported entirely by EON Productions. Yes, EON Productions didn't want this to happen either. EON Productions didn't, and still doesn't, want a situation were MGM (and Annapurna and UA Releasing) are fully owned by a bigger mammoth like Universal Pictures or Warner Bros. Now that I call irresponsible. And I think the reason EON doesn't want this to happen, is because of EON's tremendously succesful sponsorship business that in essence is never used as direct investment in a Bond-film, but that is entirely swallowed by the bank accounts of EON/Danjaq. A more powerful company like Universal would want to have more control over that aspect, which obviously is logical. But not to EON Productions.

    B. Hence I think we have arrived at a less interesting scenario: A big company like Universal Pictures (Comcast) or Warner Brothers buys over EON Productions Ltd. & Danjaq Inc. completely, and with it also all its sponsorship business that has become only lucrative for EON, but not for other key players (MGM, Annapurna, UA Releasing). In fact, I think many fans also overestimate this entire sponsorship branch. Yes, it's lucrative, but less so if the Bond brand becomes less and less visible with only 1 film in cinemas every 4/5 years. Especially in the long-term. Buying over an entire production facility like EON (although it doesn't directly finance the actual production...which is also weird in a way) has happened to Kathleen Kennedy's Lucasfilm Ltd. And although many fans were angry about that, it's false to say that the new Disney-era of Star Wars films brought only critical agony and despair (I think "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" were top notch films which, led by Kathleen Kennedy, managed to slightly twist the original formula). I prefer A. but perhaps B. is slightly more realistic looking at how Bond producers Barbara Broccoli & Michael G. Wilson seem to envision the current Bond-franchise with, sad to say it, all its flaws...and cracks in their walls they do not seem to see.

    C. Another option is that Gregg Wilson takes over from Barbara & Michael and brings over his entire vision to the Bond-franchise. But, I really wonder what his vision really is. He seems to be a good associate producer. Is always very nice (perhaps a bit too nice) when doing interviews with the press. But to me he lacks the hands-on mentality that some other young producers in Hollywood of his age have. And he is also very much into his own music as a DJ. It must be said though that he did the full job as executive producer on the spy film "The Rhythmn Section", which comes out three months before "No Time To Die". Or perhaps Gregg Wilson can team up with more experienced, yet similarly young producers like Jon Watts or even Marc Webb.

    So my prefereed options would be first A. (get the f%*@k off MGM) then C. (new producers!) and lastly B. (if you have to buy EON, then please do it good). So there you have it. I am open for every option. And I refuse to use grandiose vocabulary to express negative opinions, which in essence shows the kind of conservatism I dislike. I will keep an open mind with the current radically changing blockbuster climate. I will never stop defending the very James Bond character, nor will I wish the franchise to 'die' if someone else takes over MGM and/or EON. The producers are important, but to me the continuous incarnation of Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 is far more important. And sadly those two seem a little bit at odds these days.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 3,918
    Selling the franchise is most probably a non-starter. It's a longtime family business, the current owners are wildly and consistently successful. Family members have key roles in the productions and are waiting in the wings. It's their legacy and Cubby Broccoli's legacy.

    On the other hand I'm not against focused Bond film experiments like a planned story arc across films by a director like Christopher Nolan or otherwise. Or period pieces back to the 50s or 60s.

    The thing that has to be considered is whether Wilson’s children actually want to carry on the family business. They’ve worked on Bond films in the past in assistant roles much like their father and aunt did in the 70s and 80s, but do they actually want to be full fledged producers that make the big calls?

    I’ll be interested in what the future lies beyond Craig’s tenure.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 8,658
    It's their duty.
  • Posts: 5,752
    Selling the franchise is most probably a non-starter. It's a longtime family business, the current owners are wildly and consistently successful. Family members have key roles in the productions and are waiting in the wings. It's their legacy and Cubby Broccoli's legacy.

    On the other hand I'm not against focused Bond film experiments like a planned story arc across films by a director like Christopher Nolan or otherwise. Or period pieces back to the 50s or 60s.

    The thing that has to be considered is whether Wilson’s children actually want to carry on the family business. They’ve worked on Bond films in the past in assistant roles much like their father and aunt did in the 70s and 80s, but do they actually want to be full fledged producers that make the big calls?

    I’ll be interested in what the future lies beyond Craig’s tenure.

    Unless something radically changes, and I mean radically, it's known that Gregg will be taking over his father's duties for the next film, and will continue on with Barbara.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    peter wrote: »
    Selling the franchise is most probably a non-starter. It's a longtime family business, the current owners are wildly and consistently successful. Family members have key roles in the productions and are waiting in the wings. It's their legacy and Cubby Broccoli's legacy.

    On the other hand I'm not against focused Bond film experiments like a planned story arc across films by a director like Christopher Nolan or otherwise. Or period pieces back to the 50s or 60s.

    The thing that has to be considered is whether Wilson’s children actually want to carry on the family business. They’ve worked on Bond films in the past in assistant roles much like their father and aunt did in the 70s and 80s, but do they actually want to be full fledged producers that make the big calls?

    I’ll be interested in what the future lies beyond Craig’s tenure.

    Unless something radically changes, and I mean radically, it's known that Gregg will be taking over his father's duties for the next film, and will continue on with Barbara.

    So far, I think that's the case. For now. But I thought this topic was also a way of discussing "what if" scenarios. In with such "what if" scenarios I think my choice is clear (read above).
Sign In or Register to comment.