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

24

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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).

    As in, ‘What if my auntie had bollocks’?
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    RC7 wrote: »
    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).

    As in, ‘What if my auntie had bollocks’?

    As in, "I'm tired typing long responses, and I'm rewatching Star Trek: DS9 to prepare for Star Trek:Picard". PS: I cut off contact with my aunties long time ago, as they are dumb 😊
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    RC7 wrote: »
    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).

    As in, ‘What if my auntie had bollocks’?

    As in, "What would be better for the Bond-franchise" with the knowledge we have right now? You prefer the status quo. So why are you in this topic bringing your aunties into this discussion Monsieur @RC7? Showing off the size of your...... (no, not engine 😏😉)?

    I think what @RC7 is saying is that there's not a chance in Hell that Barbara is selling the franchise. Anyone remotely connected to the industry has heard this-- no matter the offer. And we know there have been offers. Plural. Even back in Cubby's days!

    Barbara would have to be very-- VERY-- hard-pressed to sell her father's legacy.

    She's not going anywhere.

    And Gregg is the heir to take over Michael's position; like his father before him, but, especially, like his step-aunt, he has been groomed for this upcoming position from a very young age, dating back to (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, DAD).

    He has worked his way up the ladder. Each rung had more responsibility...

    The Family is not about to sell (unless things seriously, radically and nauseatingly go South).... which makes this "what if" conversation unrealistic and a little bit disrespectful (or a lot, depending on the POV).
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    edited September 2019 Posts: 431
    peter wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    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).

    As in, ‘What if my auntie had bollocks’?

    As in, "What would be better for the Bond-franchise" with the knowledge we have right now? You prefer the status quo. So why are you in this topic bringing your aunties into this discussion Monsieur @RC7? Showing off the size of your...... (no, not engine 😏😉)?

    I think what @RC7 is saying is that there's not a chance in Hell that Barbara is selling the franchise. Anyone remotely connected to the industry has heard this-- no matter the offer. And we know there have been offers. Plural. Even back in Cubby's days!

    Barbara would have to be very-- VERY-- hard-pressed to sell her father's legacy.

    She's not going anywhere.

    And Gregg is the heir to take over Michael's position; like his father before him, but, especially, like his step-aunt, he has been groomed for this upcoming position from a very young age, dating back to (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, DAD).

    He has worked his way up the ladder. Each rung had more responsibility...

    The Family is not about to sell (unless things seriously, radically and nauseatingly go South).... which makes this "what if" conversation unrealistic and a little bit disrespectful (or a lot, depending on the POV).

    Obviously that's what @RC7 is saying @Peter. And I am fully aware that the chances, at this stage, aren't big that EON is going to sell (What about Barbara herself feeling the need to sell…?). But forums exists by default on "what if" scenarios if you ask me. We all are powerless pawns in all these discussions, if we either defend parts of the franchise with all our arguments or not :-).

    I'm not here to dwell in the current status quo of parts of the franchise. I try to look into options that could enhance the franchise; make the franchise stronger and from a quality perspective make its films better too. Realistic or not, even real movie business bojos are discussing such stuff. Look at Disney.

    Frankly, to end this short post, I find it rather disrespectful that you actually call such opinions disrespectful in the first place. We all have a big heart for the Bond-franchise no? I adore the Bond-franchise. I am a collection freak. And I tremendously look forward to what Cary Fukunaga gives us next April. But I'm not here to stay quiet if a topic like this one appears. And in some instances I find the Bond-character to be overpowering even the Bond producers.

    Feel free to discuss then, by staying on topic. Either you bring in some options, nuanced options about selling the franchise (or let EON untouched, which I desire if you read carefully) and why this could strengthen the franchise (MGM isn't exactly a stabile movie company), or don't post in here :-). The topic title is clear. What I will do then is discussing it in the best possible way, with argument, not with aunts.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I honestly believe that if any other studio got the rights to the James Bond franchise there's a really high chance you'll end up with a cardboard cutout franchise. A lot of studio heads trying to recreate the same feeling, and probably getting it really wrong and creating very flat one-sided films.

    You could say that's what EON are doing but Id' have to strongly disagree. While the Craig-era hasn't been perfect, it's definitely not as flat or one-sided or so studio produced as say the Hunger Games films or Twilight or Fifty Shades, and in my own opinion, the Fast and Furious franchise and the MI franchise.

    Putting my dedication to Bond aside and being realistic and just looking at these films from an objective stand point, I have to say that despite my negative thoughts about QoS and Spectre, these films still have bite, and a bit of complexity and fullness to them, whereas with franchises like F&F and MI, I can really feel 2-Dimensional quality to them, not necessarily in how they're shot, but more in how the films are presented and produced, and how the action is categorised.

    It's difficult to put into words, but the best way I can do it, is by saying in my opinion the other franchises I've just listed are just moneymakers and spectacles. F&F and MI are about the action. You don't go to see a F&F for it's interesting story.

    Bond has both action and story, and often goes hand in hand. Bond manages to stay current and grounded while honouring it's traditions. Attempting new things as well as bringing back old. I just feel that in any other hands, Bond would just become another moneymaking, action spectacle franchise that tries to hard to be the James Bond we think we all know. I think other producers would create a James Bond that some people only recognise with stereotypical assumptions of who he is. It would become as flat as when it's used as a question in a Trivial Pursuit. Basically just taking his most famous tropes and just running with those.

    The perfect thing about EON is that they know where they've been, and they know where they're at. Other studios won't have that same connection. Now some may say that's a good idea, but with a franchise like James Bond you need that history and that understanding of where it's been and where it's going.

    I apologise if none of this makes sense. I've only just finished work haha :D
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    peter wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    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).

    As in, ‘What if my auntie had bollocks’?

    As in, "What would be better for the Bond-franchise" with the knowledge we have right now? You prefer the status quo. So why are you in this topic bringing your aunties into this discussion Monsieur @RC7? Showing off the size of your...... (no, not engine 😏😉)?

    I think what @RC7 is saying is that there's not a chance in Hell that Barbara is selling the franchise. Anyone remotely connected to the industry has heard this-- no matter the offer. And we know there have been offers. Plural. Even back in Cubby's days!

    Barbara would have to be very-- VERY-- hard-pressed to sell her father's legacy.

    She's not going anywhere.

    And Gregg is the heir to take over Michael's position; like his father before him, but, especially, like his step-aunt, he has been groomed for this upcoming position from a very young age, dating back to (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, DAD).

    He has worked his way up the ladder. Each rung had more responsibility...

    The Family is not about to sell (unless things seriously, radically and nauseatingly go South).... which makes this "what if" conversation unrealistic and a little bit disrespectful (or a lot, depending on the POV).

    Obviously that's what @RC7 is saying @Peter. And I am fully aware that the chances, at this stage, aren't big that EON is going to sell (What about Barbara herself feeling the need to sell…?). But forums exists by default on "what if" scenarios if you ask me. We all are powerless pawns in all these discussions, if we either defend parts of the franchise with all our arguments or not :-).

    I'm not here to dwell in the current status quo of parts of the franchise. I try to look into options that could enhance the franchise; make the franchise stronger and from a quality perspective make its films better too. Realistic or not, even real movie business bojos are discussing such stuff. Look at Disney.

    Frankly, to end this short post, I find it rather disrespectful that you actually call such opinions disrespectful in the first place. We all have a big heart for the Bond-franchise no? I adore the Bond-franchise. I am a collection freak. And I tremendously look forward to what Cary Fukunaga gives us next April. But I'm not here to stay quiet if a topic like this one appears. And in some instances I find the Bond-character to be overpowering even the Bond producers.

    Feel free to discuss then, by staying on topic. Either you bring in some options, nuanced options about selling the franchise (or let EON untouched, which I desire if you read carefully) and why this could strengthen the franchise (MGM isn't exactly a stabile movie company), or don't post in here :-). The topic title is clear. What I will do then is discussing it in the best possible way, with argument, not with aunts.

    To keep this post shorter, and with no irony attached @GertGettler , have you ever thought of seriously approaching EoN? Since you try and "look into options that could enhance the franchise; make the franchise stronger and from a quality perspective make its films better too."?
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    Well, I like your remark @Denbigh. So if you mind, this time, I'd like to go into detail a bit about what you just commented on:
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I honestly believe that if any other studio got the rights to the James Bond franchise there's a really high chance you'll end up with a cardboard cutout franchise. A lot of studio heads trying to recreate the same feeling, and probably getting it really wrong and creating very flat one-sided films.

    We don't know for sure. Like you say, it's merely a 'feeling'. And let me try to say this to you one more time. Scroll back one more page and you'll find out that I'm not asking that the entire Bond-franchise will be sold. Given the complex legal structure of things that's by default impossible. You also have to see where the creative decisions are being made: at EON, not at MGM. MGM is mainly financing, but does so among an almost antique way of managing things. Tell me why your feeling is negative if only MGM is bought over enturely by, let's say, Universal, and EON Ltd. stays entirely the same.

    Regarding the franchise itself, Bond is by default a franchise consisting of repeating tropes and formulaic parts and pieces sewn into a coherent Bond-film. Sometimes done tremendously well and in a refreshing way (CR, SF), but sometimes also in a way that you start to think, would another movie company really do it worse than EON? (DAF, TMWTGG, DAD, QOS). So in a way I think your worries are real, but at this stage merely based on fears and not on an open-minded vision. What if Universal only does the management and financial side of things and does so ten times better than MGM is doing atm and that at the same time EON, owning the other 50% of Bond, continues to produce Bond's with their typical flair?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    You could say that's what EON are doing but Id' have to strongly disagree. While the Craig-era hasn't been perfect, it's definitely not as flat or one-sided or so studio produced as say the Hunger Games films or Twilight or Fifty Shades, and in my own opinion, the Fast and Furious franchise and the MI franchise.

    I find it difficult to compare action-blockbuster-franchises with teenager-sci-fi-fantasy-franchises. The "F&F"-franchise and the "M:I"-franchise is a different discussion as they are more direct competition for Bond (I even saw a crewmember on the set of NTTD wearing this ;-) ):
    18308972-7448761-image-m-27_1568133193311.jpg

    But if we discuss those, I think we ought to see that the last two "M:I"-films were not just financially succesful, they were critically acclaimed too. More so than "SP". Now I actually find "SP" way better than many forummembers want to give it credit for, but all I am wishing is a franchise that legally, financially and organizationally is more streamlined. People are too soon looking at these radical changes in the blockbuster landscape as a giant beast that suffocates the soul of a franchise. I frankly...find that nonsense.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Putting my dedication to Bond aside and being realistic and just looking at these films from an objective stand point, I have to say that despite my negative thoughts about QoS and Spectre, these films still have bite, and a bit of complexity and fullness to them, whereas with franchises like F&F and MI, I can really feel 2-Dimensional quality to them, not necessarily in how they're shot, but more in how the films are presented and produced, and how the action is categorised.

    See my answer above, but again to me that's besides the point :-). I think "SPECTRE" still is a wonderful Bond-film, perhaps illogical with the decisions made by characters (too many loose plot connections), that shines in wonderful cinematography and nonsensical escapism from "Dr. No" and "Thunderball". But that does not mean that I take the franchise for granted and don't criticize quotes and critical (pre-)productions decisions by the producers.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It's difficult to put into words, but the best way I can do it, is by saying in my opinion the other franchises I've just listed are just moneymakers and spectacles. F&F and MI are about the action. You don't go to see a F&F for it's interesting story.

    I actually think Bond is also just that. Let's try and observe the Bond-franchise from the shoes of a "F&F"-fan or Ethan Hunt-fan every now and that. It can't hurt. And then you discover that Bond is not a smug arthouse franchise. No. It still exists because of the fact that it is a action blockbuster out there to make huge amounts of money. A franchise that foremost exists to entertain. It just saddens me that some other franchises start to take over that job more skilfully. Then a new movie company can bring in some fresh ideas. NOT just financially, but perhaps even from the quality-perspective.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Bond has both action and story, and often goes hand in hand. Bond manages to stay current and grounded while honouring it's traditions. Attempting new things as well as bringing back old. I just feel that in any other hands, Bond would just become another moneymaking, action spectacle franchise that tries to hard to be the James Bond we think we all know. I think other producers would create a James Bond that some people only recognise with stereotypical assumptions of who he is. It would become as flat as when it's used as a question in a Trivial Pursuit. Basically just taking his most famous tropes and just running with those.

    In many ways, especially in recent years, the Bond producers also try hard to become what others already are: Bruce Lee (TMWTGG), Jason Bourne (QOS) and The Joker (SF). Are we then complaining too? No. Because sometimes even such critical decisions work (SF) and some of them don't (QOS). In many ways Bond is also the victim of its own success. And that's not a bad thing. But I want a Bond-franchise that is a trendsetter creatively, and behind the scenes a franchise that financially and organizationally is healthier than others.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The perfect thing about EON is that they know where they've been, and they know where they're at. Other studios won't have that same connection. Now some may say that's a good idea, but with a franchise like James Bond you need that history and that understanding of where it's been and where it's going.

    I apologise if none of this makes sense. I've only just finished work haha :D

    Hence I never said directly that I want to undo EON. But a fresh new player can also be a good idea, reinvigorating the franchise in such a way that people like Neal Purvis & Robert Wade say "Wow, Trump could actually be a great inspiration for a new story!" :-). In any case, your arguments give me a slightly different view as well.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    peter wrote: »
    To keep this post shorter, and with no irony attached @GertGettler , have you ever thought of seriously approaching EoN? Since you try and "look into options that could enhance the franchise; make the franchise stronger and from a quality perspective make its films better too."?

    I did start a thing online two years ago actually (you can PM me and then I send you a link), just to let you know I have a deep passionate conviction that the Bond-franchise can and should be handled better. They are the crown juwels of blockbuster filmmaking. But as of late I see that too many of these jewels are wasted and perhaps even lost forever. Even the discussions in here show how that in the end we are all united in our passion to maintain Bond as a fantastic film-franchise, but also to let it stay a fantastic franchise for years and decadesto come:-). Actually, I forgot to mention, but it is very very well possible that even "No Time To Die" can be a terrific trendsetter of a Bond-film and could even urge EON to start pre-production of Bond 26 ASAP.

    Regarding financing……I have posted a great deal about it. But even I myself are self-critical enough to say that there's still a lot of financial stuff behind the Bond films that I don't know/understand about and that I, as a fan, will probably never know off.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Thank you for your response. I appreciate the feedback, although I must quickly say this was merely a response to the title, so if you wondered why I haven't considered your arguments it's because I'm yet to read them. This was just my basic response. When you start talking about replacing MGM, that's a whole other conversation that I actually think could be just as difficult to shift, but not in the same way.

    I'll get into that another time.I wouldn't say it's a different discussion because as you mention the the last two MI films have been very successful, and even F&F, which fuels my concern even more, and of course you can feel that certain opinions of the blockbuster are nonsense, but I do have to add that I don't mean to say that on their own they're not fun and enjoyable movies that don't deserve to be successful, I just think James Bond's place within the movie industry. I think the way it should be handled is different to these properties. and my concern is that another studio will see the success and critical acclaim that these other franchises are getting and think that Bond should be more like them, because as successful as they are, they're very flat and made to be a blockbuster.

    Also I should add that just because a certain way of doing things is successful for one property, doesn't mean that all should follow suit, because a lot of the time, it can come actoss as an easy cashgrab, rather than trying to create something that feels new and fresh. You said yourself about wanting Bond to be a trendsetter, but if then Bond was made to feel more like these successful and critically acclaimed films, then it wouldn't be doing that, and also if the argument (none of this is based on your opinions solely by the way) is that james Bond should take a hint from the more successful films, then shouldn't they be building a universe of movies and upping the use of CGI, which a lot of people have said on here would not work for Bond. I understand this is a big leap in terms of an example, but I'm just trying to hit home that things don't work the same for everything, as I'm sure you know haha :D

    While we may not enjoy some of the films we've had, and some of the ways we're getting it, I believe in EON's hands, whether with new partnership or whatever, they're our best chance of getting a trendsetting and high quality James Bond franchise. Let's forget the very huge similarities between MI: Fallout and Spectre. Yes, James Bond has borrowed from popular films, but that's Hollywood. Again, I know you're not asking for their undoing but I'm just responding to the basic title of the page. We may never agree haha, but I hope some people take my thoughts into account, as I definitely have yours @GertGettler :)

    I'm like half asleep so again I'm sorry if this doesn't make any sense haha
  • Posts: 1,680
    Craig has this ability to look bulky like he did in CR and then leaner And smaller like in spectre. Right now he looks almolst as big as he did in CR
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Craig has this ability to look bulky like he did in CR and then leaner And smaller like in spectre. Right now he looks almolst as big as he did in CR
    Wrong page @Tuck91
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 1,661
    Apple owning Bond?

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/apple-eyeing-big-content-acquisition-mgm-on-target-list-190924

    I think the near future is another studio or company owning Bond. Eon can't go on for another 50 years, well, not unless there are some close relatives that want to produce the films. It's a massive responsibility.

    I mentioned this on another thread - if No Time To Die does a billion worldwide (perhaps unlikely but who knows!) then I reckon Apple or Amazon or Disney should or will make an offer for Bond (the franchise itself) or MGM. I think Disney would be the obvious choice given their huge dominance in the market but Apple are the world's leading tech company (in terms of profit?) so if they owned Bond it could be exciting. They could spend millions on Bond and other MGM content.

    Bond 26 has the potential to be the dawn of a new era for James Bond. New actor, perhaps a shift away from Fleming or Cubby and Bab's Bond. There is creative risk if Eon sold up and a new studio or tech company owned 100 percent of Bond but it's an exciting creative risk. The days of Cubby Broccoli type Bond films are over and never coming back so no point wishing for the past. Time to embrace the Bond future! (but no female Bond). :D
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Apple owning Bond?

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/apple-eyeing-big-content-acquisition-mgm-on-target-list-190924

    I think the near future is another studio or company owning Bond. Eon can't go on for another 50 years, well, not unless there are some close relatives that want to produce the films. It's a massive responsibility.

    I mentioned this on another thread - if No Time To Die does a billion worldwide (perhaps unlikely but who knows!) then I reckon Apple or Amazon or Disney should or will make an offer for Bond (the franchise itself) or MGM. I think Disney would be the obvious choice given their huge dominance in the market but Apple are the world's leading tech company (in terms of profit?) so if they owned Bond it could be exciting. They could spend millions on Bond and other MGM content.

    Bond 26 has the potential to be the dawn of a new era for James Bond. New actor, perhaps a shift away from Fleming or Cubby and Bab's Bond. There is creative risk if Eon sold up and a new studio or tech company owned 100 percent of Bond but it's an exciting creative risk. The days of Cubby Broccoli type Bond films are over and never coming back so no point wishing for the past. Time to embrace the Bond future! (but no female Bond). :D

    Gregg will be around for some time yet.
  • Posts: 6,665
    RC7 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Apple owning Bond?

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/apple-eyeing-big-content-acquisition-mgm-on-target-list-190924

    I think the near future is another studio or company owning Bond. Eon can't go on for another 50 years, well, not unless there are some close relatives that want to produce the films. It's a massive responsibility.

    I mentioned this on another thread - if No Time To Die does a billion worldwide (perhaps unlikely but who knows!) then I reckon Apple or Amazon or Disney should or will make an offer for Bond (the franchise itself) or MGM. I think Disney would be the obvious choice given their huge dominance in the market but Apple are the world's leading tech company (in terms of profit?) so if they owned Bond it could be exciting. They could spend millions on Bond and other MGM content.

    Bond 26 has the potential to be the dawn of a new era for James Bond. New actor, perhaps a shift away from Fleming or Cubby and Bab's Bond. There is creative risk if Eon sold up and a new studio or tech company owned 100 percent of Bond but it's an exciting creative risk. The days of Cubby Broccoli type Bond films are over and never coming back so no point wishing for the past. Time to embrace the Bond future! (but no female Bond). :D

    Gregg will be around for some time yet.

    He will, fortunately. As I've been saying many times over for years and years, this is a Family business. And will remain a Family business, with cousins working in other departments and Babs and Gregg running the show for a long long time, until the mighty Queen decides to leave it all in the hands of her nephew and then he'll be King, and so on and so on. It's a freaking dynasty. And I'm happy that it is. Those who want the thing to go public or that WB and Nolan buy it, just don't appreciate the legacy behind it all, and frankly it's a blatant disrespect for the work and sweat these people have poured into these films over several generations.

    EON will not sell. Long live the Queen, until we say Long live the King,... It's like a constitutional monarchy, if you think of it. The Parliament being the studios, and the monarchy being the producers.

    And I hope it'll always be that way.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    RC7 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Apple owning Bond?

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/apple-eyeing-big-content-acquisition-mgm-on-target-list-190924

    I think the near future is another studio or company owning Bond. Eon can't go on for another 50 years, well, not unless there are some close relatives that want to produce the films. It's a massive responsibility.

    I mentioned this on another thread - if No Time To Die does a billion worldwide (perhaps unlikely but who knows!) then I reckon Apple or Amazon or Disney should or will make an offer for Bond (the franchise itself) or MGM. I think Disney would be the obvious choice given their huge dominance in the market but Apple are the world's leading tech company (in terms of profit?) so if they owned Bond it could be exciting. They could spend millions on Bond and other MGM content.

    Bond 26 has the potential to be the dawn of a new era for James Bond. New actor, perhaps a shift away from Fleming or Cubby and Bab's Bond. There is creative risk if Eon sold up and a new studio or tech company owned 100 percent of Bond but it's an exciting creative risk. The days of Cubby Broccoli type Bond films are over and never coming back so no point wishing for the past. Time to embrace the Bond future! (but no female Bond). :D

    Gregg will be around for some time yet.

    Gregg is EON, not MGM. EON is one talking point, but we tend to forget that MGM is the other 50% owner of the Bond brand. And things are not going well with MGM. It's board of hedge fund hawks keep trying to relaunch MGM as a big movie company with a distribution branch. Fact is: it isn't. And although they try to do this with United Artists Releasing, I reckon its only a matter of time before MGM will be bought completely. Apple is big. And I mean really big. They have everything in place for a wonderful streaming service. Just not the extensive library of film and TV series brands/franchises. It only makes logical sense in the current Hollywood climate to swallow up MGM entirely. It's an easy victim at this stage.

    I remember last year that EON was very much against Gary Barber's plans to proactively sell MGM. Hence the board sacked him. But things will be different if an outsider wants to buy MGM, which is the other way around.

    It does have a nice ring to it EON/Danjaq owns 50% of the Bond franchise, and Apple the other 50% of the Bond franchise. Much better than those hedge fund Muppets at MGM. It would also streamline the Bond-franchise from a business perspective. Apple has the money, and I mean lots of it.
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    NOT Disney.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    BondStu wrote: »
    NOT Disney.

    I hope not hehe. But I'm all in for a biggie like Comcast (Universal) or Apple to buy up MGM. Not EON! But MGM.
  • Posts: 6,665
    BondStu wrote: »
    NOT Disney.

    I hope not hehe. But I'm all in for a biggie like Comcast (Universal) or Apple to buy up MGM. Not EON! But MGM.

    Well, Apple could be interesting because they'd be newbies on the film business right? So EON would have more free reigns (?)

    Wouldn't want Disney. And I wouldn't want Universal either. Now if EON could round up enough money to buy it all... I know that wouldn't be possible in many many levels.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Is there any confirmation that Gregg Wilson will take his father’s place in running EON with Barbara?
  • Posts: 12,506
    I think Apple could easily fight Disney if both were interested in MGM/Bond. At least we would have no further studio issues in getting the movies made.

    Personally I would rather it be kept in family control just to keep the values and tradition of what has gone before. I am all for progress though with sensible reasons.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I think Apple could easily fight Disney if both were interested in MGM/Bond. At least we would have no further studio issues in getting the movies made.

    Personally I would rather it be kept in family control just to keep the values and tradition of what has gone before. I am all for progress though with sensible reasons.

    MGM isn't a family company. Buy MGM, swallow it or even financially turn it upside down by Apple would only give the MGM-parts of the Bond brand under a better umbrella. EON stays EON and their parts will stay a family company.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 6,665
    Is there any confirmation that Gregg Wilson will take his father’s place in running EON with Barbara?

    Yes, someone very close to him said so to another person I believe in.
  • Posts: 12,506
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I think Apple could easily fight Disney if both were interested in MGM/Bond. At least we would have no further studio issues in getting the movies made.

    Personally I would rather it be kept in family control just to keep the values and tradition of what has gone before. I am all for progress though with sensible reasons.

    MGM isn't a family company. Buy MGM, swallow it or even financially turn it upside down by Apple would only give the MGM-parts of the Bond brand under a better umbrella. EON stays EON and their parts will stay a family company.

    Should have put that better, I meant in terms of creative control over the Bond movies.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Univex wrote: »
    Is there any confirmation that Gregg Wilson will take his father’s place in running EON with Barbara?

    Yes, someone very close to him said so to another person I believe in.

    That’s all we have, hearsay?
  • Posts: 613
    Let's give it to Disney they own everything else anyway. JK😂
  • Posts: 6,665
    Univex wrote: »
    Is there any confirmation that Gregg Wilson will take his father’s place in running EON with Barbara?

    Yes, someone very close to him said so to another person I believe in.

    That’s all we have, hearsay?

    No, good hearsay ;) from reliable people.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited September 2019 Posts: 5,834
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Is there any confirmation that Gregg Wilson will take his father’s place in running EON with Barbara?

    Yes, someone very close to him said so to another person I believe in.

    That’s all we have, hearsay?

    No, good hearsay ;) from reliable people.

    I can second that. @Univex is a speaker of truth haha :D

    giphy.gif
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 6,665
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    What reliable people?
  • Posts: 6,665
    What reliable people?

    Sorry, need to know basis, I'm sure you understand.

    PS: I'll PM you
Sign In or Register to comment.