It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I get that completely. Again, for what it's worth, it's often the case that heads of studios or big businesses have been abhorrent people (worse than Bezos in many ways). MGM Amazon is a big company with many different people involved, and the success of this film will depend on them and not Jeff Bezos (you have figures like Courtenay Valenti - the Head of Film - who has a prior relationship with Broccoli and the Bond series to the point the MSJ article claimed she was called the "Barbara Broccoli whisperer". From what I understand she's a major reason why we have the producers we do and is a key part in this transition).
The long term for Bond is what'll be interesting. Without EON we've lost long term custodians who have a deeper obligation to (and understanding of) this franchise/character, and that is genuinely a shame. It'll depend on the individuals who from here on are given the responsibility of making these films.
Yeah that was odd. I can't remember how they phrased it, but it may have been because he took charge of the snow chase sequence in Spectre and there was a very bad accident on that set which ended the career of Terry Madden, who had worked on every Bond film since at least FYEO.
I think that may have been it too, but he did work on NTTD and even in 2022, when interviewed, MGW was saying that Gregg would continue to be involved.
I imagine as part of the $1bn buy out, Gregg gets his share. Maybe he decided at his age (I think late 30's) he could basically cash out as well and do what he wanted free of the baggage of the family business.
Honestly, it's a massive ask to dedicate your career, and basically your life, to a single franchise out of family obligation. And not everyone is a natural creative or able to navigate the business side of these things (to MGW and BB's credit they were adept at both these things).
I suppose it's encouraging that individuals are around at Amazon who seem to have some understanding of Bond and what working on these movies entails (and have even been involved in the more recent movies). Perhaps it means there's something to pass down, even if it's not in a family line.
My suspicion is Cubby caught a second wave with Michael and Barbara. Not only was MGW a former lawyer and had a good business/practical sense (which incidentally was seemingly very useful wrapping up a lot of issues with Bond further down the line), but he was committed to the creative side as well, doing jobs in producing and scriptwriting for Bond from his early 30s/as a young man onwards. I've heard BB was simply a very determined, creative individual anyway, and it came out early on even when she was just an assistant on these films. She was only in her mid 30s by GE so you had a good mixture of the older, more seasoned MGW with the younger BB. They may have even simply gotten along/have been close when working together for whatever reason. I can easily imagine that generational gap wouldn't have been filled with perhaps Tony and Tina (maybe anyway, obviously none of us know these people). I can easily imagine Cubby eyeing out each family member to see who was best to inherit this franchise (and honestly, if he'd had a situation like the one with Amazon I don't know if he'd come out better).
I think BB and MGW just never had that second wave. Again, understandable. Even if it's in your family it's not always seen as a duty or a labour of love. If anything having a second generation at EON was very lucky. Hard job, and often thankless and something which requires a lot of sacrifice (and that's not a bad thing necessarily - I honestly think a big part of having long term Bond actors comes from having producers who are also there long term. There's a responsibility that comes with it).
It’s encouraging yeah, but also as equally nerve racking knowing that there are others at Amazon who have little to no understanding of Bond and the films. Wasn’t it reported that some Amazon executive stated that they don’t think James Bond is heroic? I guess an easier way of conveying how I feel would be to say that I have faith in Villenevue, Pascal, and Heyman but I don’t faith in the people above them to keep making healthy and creative decisions - only time will tell though.
I suppose it's worth saying Cubby and Harry thought Bond was an 'anti hero' when they took over and said this publicly. Honestly, I think they got certain things wrong with DN with that mentality. It took time and even a second generation to cement any sort of 'values' with Bond, and these are the things any future filmmakers of Bond will be looking at.
I'll also put it this way: the silent partners above them may well be EON. Not the ones making the creative choices or now the sole owners of the franchise's future, but those expecting 50% of these earnings whatever Amazon come out with. They're not directly involved but these people are still alive and a part of that deal. At least as far as I know.
I think the $1B was for control. Barbara and Michael are now passive partners and have no say, which is what I think Bezos wanted when he acquired MGM in the first place.
I would guess that, for the billion, there is some sort of anti-disparagement clause, so that Barbara and Michael can't criticize the new Bond films too much, or at all. A forced, if well-paid, retirement. Or golden parachute.
Yes, I think that might be true. Although I think Michael was pretty much retired at this point or cemented about doing so.
As I said, I think the ins and outs of this deal and who are dealing with this specifically isn't a win for anyone, one way or the other. BB and MGW are still alive (ie why would Amazon want to radically change Bond while they're around and have all this PR around them, even if they can't say anything), and even as passive partners there's still a lot of sub points to this deal (which we may well never know).
I think it's that basically: the previous agreement was a weird and mysterious one, which tied MGM and Eon together and gave Eon certainty that they would be the ones producing the Bond films- although back in the late 70s/early 80s there was actually a clause that if Eon didn't begin making a new film within a certain timeframe then UA could get a different production company to make it(!).
So I think this deal meant that Eon sold up that dibs on being the creative company which got to produce the films which was part of the joint ownership situation, and that meant redrawing the deal. Whether that meant they sold MGM 1% of Bond to give them a controlling stake or something I don't know, or whether that wasn't necessary. It would be fascinating to find out, as it is it seems like the canniest deal in the history of the movies at the moment. They get a cool billion and piles of cash every time there's a new Bond film, in return for selling... nothing at all!