007 heading to streaming? Amazon buys MGM for $8.45 billion!

18911131427

Comments

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,481
    Thanks @mtm fingers crossed it's good for the future of the series
  • Posts: 9,730
    Here is hoping it will be good but in all honesty I fear this might make things bad
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    edited May 2021 Posts: 524
    We have a first (and very short) reaction by EON.

    Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson told Variety:
    “We are committed to continuing to make James Bond films for the worldwide theatrical audience.”

    So that makes it clear: EON doesn't want any direct-to-streaming-deals, and I think we can nix any wild spin-off tv show ideas for the time being as well.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,834
    I mean even if spin-offs were on the cards, which I overall doubt anyway, they wouldn't be put into any kind of pre-production until they know what their main guy is gonna be doing in Bond 26. Can't spin-off if you don't know what you're spinning off from.
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 613
    I'm chuckling at people's insistence that EON will somehow have "full" or "ironclad" creative control.

    Sure. You mean like this:


    EON: Timothy Dalton will star in GoldenEye.

    MGM: No, we're not making another Bond movie with Timothy.

    EON: Pierce Brosnan will star in GoldenEye.

    or

    EON: It's too difficult to put a Bond movie out every other year.

    MGM: Credit Lyonnais is trying to show that MGM is still a major player in the industry. You're doing a Bond movie every other year.

    EON: We're doing a Bond movie every other year.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I don't know why people think Amazon would want to mess with something that's already proven financially successful for nearly 60 years, and will make them even more...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I'm chuckling at people's insistence that EON will somehow have "full" or "ironclad" creative control.

    So it's not a change in situation then.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited May 2021 Posts: 7,999
    That’s false because Dalton confirmed that he ultimately turned down GE. He only wanted to do one film, but EON wanted an actor that would commit to more films.

    Besides, there’s no way a studio would have signed off with a casting choice like Daniel Craig. That was all EON.
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 613
    That’s false because Dalton confirmed that he ultimately turned down GE. He only wanted to do one film, but EON wanted an actor that would commit to more films.

    Besides, there’s no way a studio would have signed off with a casting choice like Daniel Craig. That was all EON.

    This is really a topic for another thread, but John Calley & Jeff Kleeman at MGM/UA did not want Dalton for GE (this was reported in a couple of places, including a Kleeman interview for MI6 Confidential). It was never going to happen even if EON had approved Dalton's request to do one more film.

    As for Craig's casting, you can be sure that Craig (and EON) would not have gotten a green light without the studio's approval.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I mean, ultimately it means MGM can't hold back productions anymore, so that's a good thing in itself.

    I'd say they will keep the lion. It's an instant slice of iconography and it would be a waste to bin it.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,032
    R.e. Craig I think Broccoli convinced Amy Pascal, then head of Sony Pictures, to cast him. Everything else, as they say, is history.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 14,861
    That’s false because Dalton confirmed that he ultimately turned down GE. He only wanted to do one film, but EON wanted an actor that would commit to more films.

    That doesn't really prove it to be false though. As Escalus says, the execs at the time have said they didn't want Dalton back and that would seem to make an awful lot of sense.
    Dalton may well have decided he didn't want to do it as well, but the decision would have been the studio's. The story about him choosing to leave the role always sounded like a PR cover story to me, much like the official story that he was actually first choice for Daylights and not Brosnan.
    Besides, there’s no way a studio would have signed off with a casting choice like Daniel Craig. That was all EON.

    I don't really see why not in that case: Eon have proven themselves to be trustworthy. The studio must have signed off on it.
    Surely all of the leaked emails from the making of Spectre show that the studio have input into these films?
  • Posts: 1,395
    I mean, ultimately it means MGM can't hold back productions anymore, so that's a good thing in itself.

    I'd say they will keep the lion. It's an instant slice of iconography and it would be a waste to bin it.

    I'd say keep MGM logo if they return to the original, the CGI Leo can be binned.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I think this is good news, in the sense that UA, then MGM/UA, and then MGM, had nothing but financial troubles and only Bond to keep it afloat every two years.

    Money is not an issue with Amazon.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    echo wrote: »
    I think this is good news, in the sense that UA, then MGM/UA, and then MGM, had nothing but financial troubles and only Bond to keep it afloat every two years.

    Money is not an issue with Amazon.

    +1
  • Posts: 1,314
    MGM have been an absolute millstone around the Franchises neck for over 30 years. Thanks for the memories but nostalgia aside I am glad.

    Amazon whatever we think about their dubious tax arrangements are a successful, contemporary tech company and are proven to make sound business decisions. They will not mess with a golden goose.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I mean, ultimately it means MGM can't hold back productions anymore, so that's a good thing in itself.

    I'd say they will keep the lion. It's an instant slice of iconography and it would be a waste to bin it.

    I'd say keep MGM logo if they return to the original, the CGI Leo can be binned.


    Can't help but agree!
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,377
    This paves way for various entertaining spin-offs.

    VesperVision
    Bond and the Southern Sheriff
  • Posts: 47
    echo wrote: »
    I think this is good news, in the sense that UA, then MGM/UA, and then MGM, had nothing but financial troubles and only Bond to keep it afloat every two years.

    Money is not an issue with Amazon.

    This is a great point!
  • Posts: 2,887
    They need to bring back THIS version of the logo:

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Revelator wrote: »
    They need to bring back THIS version of the logo:


    They should put my avatar on the logo for a one-off. That'd make the audience feel really cosy and ease them nicely into the film.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    This paves way for various entertaining spin-offs.

    VesperVision
    Bond and the Southern Sheriff
    Mendelwood. He'll find out where the money went.
    ee7b982a-4e1a-447f-931b-8fe29c3173cf_text.gif


    And that MGM logo is ripe for the gunbarrel placement.

  • Posts: 113
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    That’s false because Dalton confirmed that he ultimately turned down GE. He only wanted to do one film, but EON wanted an actor that would commit to more films.

    Besides, there’s no way a studio would have signed off with a casting choice like Daniel Craig. That was all EON.

    This is really a topic for another thread, but John Calley & Jeff Kleeman at MGM/UA did not want Dalton for GE (this was reported in a couple of places, including a Kleeman interview for MI6 Confidential). It was never going to happen even if EON had approved Dalton's request to do one more film.

    As for Craig's casting, you can be sure that Craig (and EON) would not have gotten a green light without the studio's approval.

    This is confirmed by the same sections in Nobody Does it Better which goes into the studio politics from multiple sides quite a bit better than most sources-it's especially helpful in trying to understand the TND scripting scenario. Kleeman's quotes in the book are indispensable.
    Ultimately it's EON but the linked studio throws their weight around and the major decisions can't be passed without both being on board. With Amazon there's no way of knowing their approach and that's why I'm very leery.

    I'm worried for MGM and UA catalog titles on disc and of course the delayed Bond UHD release. However dealing with the studio became a major never ending issue when MGM and their nightmare swallowed up UA and took over a significant chunk of Cubby's time trying to keep them at bay-and of course they never lifted the budget cap for the entire 1980's. The ongoing problems led to the six year gap and all the headaches since that have caused gap after gap after issue. I may despise the modern films but I always commend Barbara and Michael for having to navigate through these increasingly treacherous waters that go back to Saltzman's shares being bought out by UA in 1975.

    The really interesting notion is that Cubby wanted Harry's price to go down super low before he bought him out and UA finally stepped in instead.


    And of course no one knows UA anymore. The MGM purchase is really all about the UA library and what was the most artistic and honest of all studios is now a footnote inside the footnote that is MGM now inside the Amazon behemoth.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    They need to bring back THIS version of the logo:


    They should put my avatar on the logo for a one-off. That'd make the audience feel really cosy and ease them nicely into the film.

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    I'd say good move. MGM has been indeed sort of a millstone around the neck of Bond for quite a while now. Amazon, whether you like them or not, has Money Galore. I don't even mind some more 'pressure' on EON, to give us more Bond films. They did it before so why not anymore, save from covid.

    Also, Amazon just released 'Leonardo' starring future Bond potential Aidan Turner. Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this could turn out very well for mr. Turner. Perhaps Amazon sees a lot of potential in him as well, we shall see ;)
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,341
    180503-jeff-bezos-upset-people-alt-feature.jpg?quality=80&strip=all
    2021-05-26.jpg?itok=3vJFuU4m
  • Posts: 9,730
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I'm chuckling at people's insistence that EON will somehow have "full" or "ironclad" creative control.

    Sure. You mean like this:


    EON: Timothy Dalton will star in GoldenEye.

    MGM: No, we're not making another Bond movie with Timothy.

    EON: Pierce Brosnan will star in GoldenEye.

    or

    EON: It's too difficult to put a Bond movie out every other year.

    MGM: Credit Lyonnais is trying to show that MGM is still a major player in the industry. You're doing a Bond movie every other year.

    EON: We're doing a Bond movie every other year.


    Thank you glad to see I am not the only one worried

    Look I have no control over anything and will watch the films and either enjoy them or not and if they do something I really don’t like I will probably walk away not in an angry or annoyed way but just realizing that I guess things change and oh well../

    I just fear the future but at least for the immediate future we have No time to die and the new game so I am happy with that
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Truthfully I'm not clued up enough to know the implications for Bond, but I just hope Eon retain full creative control and aren't forced into any decisions regarding plot, casting and so on

    I hope it just means there is more financial support so we hopefully get a consistent stream of Bond every 3 years or so. I wouldn't really want TV series and spin offs, just focus on our man Bond
    Thankfully they didn't agree this deal this time last year, otherwise we might have been watching NTTD on Amazon Prime

    That accurately sums up how I feel about the news as well. This is certainly not my area of expertise within Bond but I like to know what's going on in a more general sense. Hopefully it will be seen as good news when the implications of the deal become fully clear further down the line. That's what we've got to hope for.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,834
    By that logic, anyone who worked for Amazon before could be in with a chance? Amazon isn't the Aiden Turner studio, if anything, that's the BBC haha :D

    The only relationship I could see continuing with this deal and if No TIme to Die works out is Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who already has a good relationship with Amazon.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Dang your right, I totally forgot that. She has an overall deal there. Don't know if that specific deal only covers TV, but Salke certainly has her on speed-dial.
    Maybe the "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" series she is working on with Donald Glover will be backdoored into the Bond universe. Mr & Mrs Leiter.
Sign In or Register to comment.