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
Make them (Bond films, Bond TV series. whatever) and they will come.
You can nitpick all you want, but what he's attempting to get through to you is that the sort of fan base that SW and Marvel exploit, in terms of demographics and sheer volume, is relatively non-existent for Bond. It is comparatively niche. It can be exploited, but not on the level Amazon/Apple would require to invest.
I've already explained to you about Bond's almost non-existent sway in geek culture. It's a heritage brand. A $3-5bn investment simply isn't going to see the necessary return, it's via EON being more savvy and less greedy with existing/new ancillary channels that the franchise can further its potential.
And your point is? We're not talking Bond films but Q/MP/M/Blofeld spinoffs or whatever. Nobody outside of these forums will show up for such films.
You make a new Bond film and hundred of millions of people will go see it on the big screen, wait for it on Blu Ray or for the television broadcast. You make a Q spinoff an nobody will care outside of the hardcore fans on forums like this one.
Because Bond movies a huge events. You don't need to be a hardcore fan, or even a casual fan to show up for every new Bond film. What I'm saying is the amount of people who can be classified as hardcore fans is just incredibly small compared to the millions upon millions of people who will always show up for new Bond films despite not caring about most of the stuff we argue/complain/theorize about on countless threads on this website.
And if that awarenness and appreciation of Bond can be exploited re spin offs, then the movie universe can be expanded. I would far rather sell a Bond spin off to the global market than a standalone spy movie. The awarness is already in place.
Watercooler chat:
Whats it about?
It's about a double O agent who's boss is M and she worked with James Bond
Whats it about?
Its about a female spy
Which one is easier to market/sell/promote? It's a no brainer IMHO
You dont have to be a hardcore fan to pay for your ticket and enjoy a great spy movie thats also a Bond spin off. I just dont get why a spinn off has to rely on "hardcore fans" as the origal movies clearly dont.
If anything, the flexibity/creativity offered by a spin off enables movies to target new fans who may not be that interested in the original series (female OO agent being the obvious example)
Ironically, it could be hard core fans who reject the spinn offs whilst the mainstream public are more open minded/flexible/less dogmatic?.
Agreed. You sully the prestige and dilute the impact of the 'event' by plugging the gaps with unnecessary exploitation.
I think it's worth noting that the biggest (by a wide margin) non-film ancillary product that made a significant cultural impact was GE64. The brand certainly gave the game traction, but the reason it became a phenomenon was because it was a genre-defining game first and a Bond game second. To assume the brand is all is foolish I'm afraid. You can't just go and make a spin-off, in any genre, and expect an audience.
If you want a female 00 spinoff, you go ahead and make your own female spy franchise unrelated to Bond. Because Bond related films that don't feature Bond just won't work at all.
On that basis, is a good spy/adventure movie harder or easier to market as a standalone compared to a Bond spin off? And which one has the greater potential re merchadise/placement? If you were head of sales, which would you rather be in charge of?
Re hardcore fans etc, does anyone seriously think that Rogue One did well exclusively due to the hardcore Star Wars fans. ?
"That awareness and appreciation of ...insert any brand... cannot be exploited."
Brands are all about awarness and appreciation. You have hit the nail on the head. It's so much easier to sell/promote something after they are aware of what it is.
Would you like to buy a bottle of Coke?
Whats Coke?
Have you seen the new James Bond spin off movie?
James Bond? who's he?
Awarness is THE big challenge with anything new (because you have to waste time/resources explaining to the public what you are selling) and once you are through that, selling becomes so much easier.
It's not about rejecting change it's about accepting you don't play in that sand box. There is no long term sustainable future in an expanded Bond universe. The big wigs know this. Like I said, EON could successfully exploit a few more channels, but if you think Bond is going to be on a commercial level with SW/Marvel you're on crack.
If you want a female 00 spinoff, you go ahead and make your own female spy franchise unrelated to Bond. Because Bond related films that don't feature Bond just won't work at all.
If you can't understand that, this discussion will only go around in circles.
It is not possible to market a Bond spinoff if Bond isn't featured in the film. Nobody cares about a Bond universe film if Bond himself isn't in it. Which defeats everything you've been arguing about for the last few pages. Such female spy flick, if you never market it as a Bond spinoff, can be very successful (see: Atomic Blonde). The moment you say it's Bond related, if James Bond himself doesn't show up in the film, it's dead in the water.
It was just an attempt at humour using a famous line from a famous film. I actually agree with you, sorry I was just been frivolous.
thats not the question. The question is, can more revenue be made from the brand than at present? and is there potential for spin offs? (movie or TV). To flatly reject the option of spin offs so quickly (with no independent evidence) could be hasty.
Its a very fair point that obvioulsy the franchise is built around one character. But the process could be managed (we are talking about a long term corporate strategy). So, for example, a new character could be introduced within a conventional movie with the knowledge that they will be the central character in a spin off so the audiance becomes aware of the character. Plus Bond can make an appearance in the spin off (Iron man in Spiderman type concept)
And we have a supporting team that are recognisable within the mainstream and a style/iconography/set of cultural references that go beyond one man.
Plus you change focus of the branding for the spin off - double O agents - for example. People recognise the double 0 reference/concept but it can be appplied to other agents.
Im not saying it will happen but these are exactly the processes going on in Apple/Amazon (in much more detail) as there could...just could be money to be made.
I would also say that, even at a sublimial level, hard core fans would automatically hate the idea of spin offs as they would perceive it as watering down the character that they have loved so dearly over the decades. Thats a perfectly understandble reaction but it wont stop investors.
And dont forget Steve Jobs quote:
“A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
For the last time: Nobody cares about a male or female 00 agent spin off film if James Bond isn't the 00 agent in question.
There is no point arguing about anything until you can understand that simple truth. You can make all the British male or female spy flicks you want, but the moment you market them as Bond related films, you've lost the plot. Even if such a film ended up being successful, nobody would consider it as Bond spinoff, which defeats your very argumentation that spinoffs are a good idea. Nobody would consider a spy flick without James Bond in it as part of the Bond world. So, to put it simply, Bond spinoffs are a waste of time and money as they wouldn't even be acknowledged as Bond universe films. Just start your own specific British spy flick and never market it as Bond related.
A period piece Bond film is a more sound idea than these spinoffs, because such a 1960's or 1950's set film would still have James Bond as the central character, so you can still pull in a sizeable audience that always check out the new Bond adventure.
I wouldn't mind more Bond related media but I can't see spinoffs working very well. He's the centre of his universe. A period piece TV show could work if they're dead set on expanding it but film wise, just do a new Bond every couple of years.
Having said that I do think a villain spinoff might have potential. I'm thinking a film showing Blofeld's rise to power or something. The next M Night Shamalayn film is really exciting because he did a film developing the hero, a film developing the villain, and now he's having them face off. I wouldn't mind something like that. Set up a villain really well in his own crime epic and then have Bond sent to stop him in the next Bond film. It could be a nice twist at the end if they managed to keep it secret. Advertise it as a film about this villain, keep the Bond link secret, then at the very end have a scene in M's office with M handing Bond a file on the bad guy? Although you are just sort of ripping off Split at that point.
What I don't want is spy/action movies that don't have Bond in. No point. So no spinoffs for Felix, MI6, 00s, anything like that.
but look at Bourne Legacy. I'm not saying it was a good movie and Im not saying the spin off was handled well. But, the bottom line is, it made money. The public accepted the concept and went to see it. They even put Bourne in the title, knowing he was not in the movie!! and it still make money.
So imagine trying to value the Bourne movie rights before they made Legacy. A key question re the value of the rights would be whether a spin off would make or lose money.
Considering how central Bourne/Damen had been to the trilogy, the easy answer would be no, we cant do it. Without Damen, without Bourne, it cant be done. Its all about the central character. But that conclusion was wrong. The public were willing to go and see a Bourne movie without Bourne it it!!
All I will say is that even though the James Bond fanbase isn't like some of the other notable $1bn franchises, there is certainly more money to be made and more products to be sold. We're thinking about this in a linear fashion. That's not what companies like Amazon and Apple do, and that's why they are where they are today. They are very creative with the business end and are now getting into the content game. They will bring their mindset to this sector too.
As I said many pages ago, one can build an expanded universe that doesn't depend on Bond but which is consistent with it and references it. The fanbase could be totally different (older or younger) and it doesn't have to dilute the brand at all. It can exist almost independently of it but build on it, thereby lending credibility to several narratives.
Think of Homeland. Assume that Homeland referenced MI6 and Bond but only very rarely. He doesn't even have to make an appearance. Homeland would exist on its own terms and succeed and fail on those terms as well. One could have (theoretically) Carrie Matheson or Saul Berenson make an appearance in a Bond film and it only needs to be five minutes or so. Something that viewers of the tv show would understand but it's not essential for viewers of the film. Etc. etc. However, the tv show is built up due to the connection. From a marketing standpoint, there is a benefit and in a crowded marketplace, that's something.
Content and content distribution is where it's at these days. Across multiple platforms. The industries are consolidating due to excessive costs, and the next big item on the list is the 'internet of things' where everything is interconnected. Subscription based networks are the future. The business models are driving this conversation, which is as I expected. I'm glad for it
And about the spinoffs: I'll explain it once and for all (and it's not a question that I am for or against spinoffs, but simply that the idea will never work):
If you make a Bond spinoff, whether a 00 agent spinoff, a Q spinoff, a Blofeld spinoff, a MP spinoff. Either James Bond is not featured in the film, thus no one will ever consider it as a a Bond spinoff, so you're argumentation is totally wrong, and the only way these films work is if you remove all ties to James Bond and make a regular spy flick that may very well be successful to start a franchise. Or, you do put James Bond in the film, and you might just as well make it Bond 25/26/27/whatever, meaning your spinoff never happened and just became the new official Bond movie.
There's no doubt they'll be thinking that way and no doubt some would go all out to make it happen, but it would be a completely different model to anything out there. I think if we can avoid the multiverse, SW/Marvel comparisons there's a discussion to be had, but using that as a yardstick/benchmark doesn't help I don't think.
My issue is that, while I can see how certain things could be done, they don't strike me as being brand extensions that deliver the sort of bank an investor spending billions of dollars is looking for. Star Wars made around $3bn for Disney on merchandise alone in 2015 and $5bn in the following 12 months. It makes box office look like peanuts. That's the sort of $$$ Amazon/Apple are looking for and there is absolutely no way on earth Bond is banking even a fraction of that through merchandising. This is fact.
I understand this aspect more than I do the multiverse examples of SW/Marvel. However on a personal level it makes me want to be sick in my mouth.
@RC7 My issue is that, while I can see how certain things could be done, they don't strike me as being brand extensions that deliver the sort of bank an investor spending billions of dollars is looking for. Star Wars made around $3bn for Disney on merchandise alone in 2015 and $5bn in the following 12 months. It makes box office look like peanuts. That's the sort of $$$ Amazon/Apple are looking for and there is absolutely no way on earth Bond is banking even a fraction of that through merchandising. This is fact.
Also agree, Amazon/Apple surely know this, they are realists. It will all about about the ROI ratio. And being creative in other areas.
On that I agree.
For me the reason is: It's too hard to feel "part of it".
Unless you buy an Anthony Sinclair Three-Piece Suit and an Aston Martin DB5 you cannot as easily "participate" as with (for example) Star Wars: Buy yourself a Darth Vader costume or Jedi Robe and you feel "part of it". I don't see that happening with Q's wardrobe or the Breathing devices from TB.
YES, there are people out there collecting these things, buying replicas or wardrobe etc. - but it's - as somebody or many before me already said - a fraction of what these "franchises" make. And reason for me is the above mentioned.
Yes, there could be a TV series - but in regards to spinoff movies and all the related things that additionally heat the demand (all the playsets, costumes, posters and such) I also don't see for Bond.
The key is really to try and develop it within the marketing for the theatrical releases. I'm still surprised they did zero viral marketing for SP - with the only thing being the Heineken thing. The dream for B25 would be for the powers that be to create an engaging experience that'd be able to tap the 'geek' audiences and get them to include Bond in their geekdom - if that makes sense. Pushing the film in a Logan esque fashion as Craig's swan song would add to that element.
How would people respond to a B25 presentation/panel at the 2019 SDCC?
A Bond team attending SDCC would be interesting but I can also imagine some fans would hate the idea. Perhaps perceived as a little childish/imature?
But branching out from within the movie platform might be almost impossible. Say you greenlight a Jaws, Natalya or Silva spinoffs. All 3 characters are very fondly appreciated by members on these forums and in the general audience. But would solo films about them actually work? I would love to see more from these 3 specific characters I listed (assuming Silva had survived SF and EON were panning to bringing him back in B24), but I doubt I would care at all about their new adventures if Moore Bond, Brosnan Bond or Craig Bond weren't involved. Meaning you might as well have added Jaws in FYEO, Natalya in TND and Silva in SP.
Again you do 3 series of bond films
Young Bond (based on the young bond books so starting with Silverfin and moving forward)
Bond During war time (really taking the biography on the Casino Royale Website and running with that)
Bond as 007
and for Telivision Felix Leighter the Tv Series (the only character cool enough to warrent his own show) through that on Fox or NBC or CBS and there you go
if they want 2 tv shows M the early years with pick a random actor from Game of thrones who just got killed off (sorry it seems a lot of future this or that in fan casting seems to be people from that show) I just could maybe get behind a show with Mallory taking on the IRA (think Patriot Games meets Missing)
you get your Bond Cinematic Universe without the focus taken away from well Bond. it works it's a compromise between what MGM want and what the Fans/Eon want (no not everything needs to be a cinematic universe and not every character deserves his or her own film WB TAKE NOTE NO ONE WANTS A JOKER SOLO FILM!!!!)
but enough of that wasn't the director supposed to be announce End of August/early September?
I am 95% Yann will direct but still confirmation would be nice.
What would it be about? Assuming we take the ending of SP seriously, Madeline and Bond are in love with each other. Why would I want to see a spinoff of her then?
Who's Madeline?
Get it ???!!!!
I am suuuuch a comedian.