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!
My best case scenario is the Bond films get access to Amazon's wallet, and that's all the influence they have. But even then, it does seem after reading the comments here that they do have some good movie people behind the scenes. It's been great honestly to read the insights of the extremely knowledgeable people here.
Perhaps the ones who lost were the EON staff ;)
Not to retread well discussed ground, but I do believe there are a number of reasons that have all contributed (not equally) to the buyout by Amazon:
- MGM wanting to retire and Barbara either wanting to move on, or not find a producing partner outside of the family (clearly, they didnt think Gregg was up to the task of taking over from MGW, or perhaps he didnt want to. All public comments suggest the former though - he was being placed to take over, but when push came to shove, they didnt want to do it for whatever reason).
- Being at a creative impass following NTTD and killing off James Bond, and struggling to find a way forward. When BB said she couldnt imagine anyone other than DC being Bond... a part of me thinks thats not just marketing guff but a genuine thought that has impacted the ability to move on.
- Failing to agree with Amazon a way forward, given their desire to exploit everything they have for Prime content.
- A shift in the power dynamics with MGM. Previously EoN held the cards - MGM needed Bond to support the wider studio. Amazon is in no such place.
- A changing cinema landscape (Streaming technology has had a huge impact, and Covid accelerated that).
All those things combined, when you're offered a billion dollars to move on and still retain a stake in any future profits (lets hope there are some).....
I think this is a huge part of it really. The Craig era was incredibly successful both critically and financially - the chances of replicating that success was pretty slim. It’s just such a shame that BB lost sight of the fact that Bond is supposed to be bigger than the actor playing him and not the other way around. Not to appear snarky or crass but if she truly couldn’t move on without DC, then perhaps it was for the best making her step aside as it was clearly affecting her ability to make these films and get them out in a timely manner.
I tend to agree; NTTD was not only destined to be Craig’s swan song , but also EoN’s.
It's been 40 years since Wilson first acted as producer on a Bond film; 36 years since Broccoli was first an associate producer on one- the idea that they somehow lost sight of what Bond feels a bit silly when they'd spent their entire working lives on it and knew and cared about it more than anyone. The idea that they'd, frankly, thought they'd done enough seems much more likely to me.
I might give up in this scenario, too. Particularly for a billion dollars.
Re-reading the WSJ article is quite interesting with that in mind. Certain phrases jump out a bit more. Stuff like:
"The two sides are at an impasse: Amazon needs Broccoli to furnish them with ideas for a new Bond movie, but Broccoli doesn’t want to make a new Bond movie with Amazon."
Needing Broccoli to 'furnish' them with ideas isn't the same as EON or Broccoli actually making this Bond movie. At least it's a strange way of saying it. The quote that Amazon "isn't a good home for Bond" also always stuck out to me (if anything EON is Bond's home in this scenario, unless of course that was to change in some way).
It may well have been a case where EON were not going to be taking a front role in Bond 26, but were still connected at this point.
I wouldn't say that. If anything EON have weathered storms a lot of film companies wouldn't be able to (ie. various issues with MGM over the years that resulted in delays with GE and SF, Danny Boyle having a hissy fit and effectively having to redo NTTD, which was further delayed by Covid etc.)
“ Broccoli to furnish them with ideas for a new Bond”.
For James Bond? Oh yes. You have to remember Broccoli's spent her whole life thinking about this character and making these films. And seemingly the best they could come up with was to make the villain an Elon Musk type (which Broccoli said she'd already done in 1997). Subsequently they seem to have gotten top line talent in, with of course Pascal having had some involvement with the franchise. So yes, I think they were keen to have someone there who understood Bond. That and Broccoli/EON have leverage being the majority owners of the franchise, so at this point they couldn't really get rid of them or make a Bond film without them.
I can easily imagine an original plan where EON were there in more of an advisory position (think EON consulting for the new First Light game) with the intention of passing Bond creatively onto producers at Amazon in the way they eventually did. Obviously there were too many creative disputes, but it's interesting that Amazon have gone the route they have done subsequently.
I can imagine a book about all this coming out in 10 years or so. There's a lot to the subject.
That's a really interesting thought, yeah; that may well have been the situation that WSJ was reporting on without knowing it.
And as has been commented on before, there's even something about Heyman and Pascal which have the whiff of being Broccoli-approved, or suggested, appointees. And that may well have smoothed the troubles the WSJ article reported on.