55 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Frankly, I think it's a bit unfair how far reaching Eon's film rights seem to go. While I think they should be given first crack at Young Bond, they shouldn't be able to prevent IFP from going elsewhere if they pass. I think it can and maybe should be argued that Eon owns films rights to James Bond 007, yes, but not to James Bond before he became 007. Of course, the Higson books are admittedly rooted in Fleming and it's Fleming's Bond that Eon owns so...

I disagree. The fault of how far Eon Productions film rights go lie at Ian Fleming's feet or his attorneys. Fleming didn't have to agree to such a deal with Harry Saltzman when he sold him the film rights. Also, was Fleming given a princely sum in 1961 dollars for the film rights and is he at fault, or his legal advisors, for being short-sighted in not realizing that films based on his literary creation would continue for over forty-three years?

Plus such a position ignores the fact that it was the Eon Productions film series and the marketing done by Eon, United Artists and then MGM/UA that makes the James Bond name worth something. I presume that Eon, United Artists, and MGM/UA have spent millions promoting James Bond.

From my perspective, the heirs of Ian Fleming whether they have the name Glidrose Publications or Ian Fleming Publications have done little or nothing to promote Bond and sit back and collect royalties.

Further, I believe that it is grossly unfair to Eon Productions and MGM/UA/Sony that a Miramax/Disney produced Silverfin, if it were to happen, can hang on the coat tails of forty-three plus years of marketing the James Bond brand. I believe that the marketing of Casino Royale, or Bond XXII, or another Bond property would directly benefit a "young" Bond production.

Very well said, Triton. You've given me food for thought there.

How do you feel about Eon (apparently) controlling the gaming rights as well? Certainly videogames were not part of the deal with Fleming. I understand how, in the beginning, videogames where considered film merchandising, but haven't they evolved into their own media now? Does Eon own the rights to Bond in all media with a "moving image"? Frankly, if I was an aggressive media company, I wouldn't go after Eon's film rights, I would go after the gaming rights because I think videogames should be defined as media apart from "movies" -- a big court case could do this -- and there is probably more money in Bond videogames than the films.

But maybe I have it all wrong (wouldn't be the first time). Maybe Eon doesn't hold the videogame rights. I'm sure it's all very complex, but maybe a partnership has been struck between Eon and EA, because what's a Bond game without movie elements? The actor, the logo, the DB5, etc. Eon clearly owns these elements and these elements might be considered critical to a games success. Maybe that's why Eon protects that logo like it were the crowns jewels. Because it is!

[Sun Tzu]

I'd like to see an animated series rather than a film.

Hell, we need better cartoons these days anyway. The only one I like today is The Batman. And even some people are dissapointed by it. Unfortunate.

[Triton]

It is that Eon Productions controls the gaming rights, or is it the case that the licensees who are producing board, role playing games, and video games want to incorporate the Eon Productions and MGM/UA owned elements of the James Bond franchise into their games/products because this is what consumers desire?

In the 1960's we had Milton Bradley licensing Sean Connery's likeness for James Bond board games.

Would the board game have had the same appeal if it had an artist rendering of a mid-30ish man with a scar down his left cheek looking like Hoagy Carmicheal with a hint of cruelty on the cover? Without the 007 logo plainly printed on the box?

In the 1980's we had Victory Games' James Bond role playing game. Victory Games chose to license the 007 logo, gun barrel,and marketing elements such as the movie logos for their game modules. In addition, Victory Games chose to take characters, plots or situations, vehicles, and locations from the Eon Productions James Bond movie series which they adapted for their rule books and adventure modules.

Victory Games could have licensed the plots of the Ian Fleming novels or even the recent best selling and critically acclaimed John Gardner James Bond novels, License Renewed, For Special Services, and Icebreaker, for advenuter modules, plots, and characters for their James Bond roleplaying game. Was several weeks on The New York Times bestseller list insufficient for Victory Games to adapt the early Gardner novels to game modules. We aren't talking about the limited print runs and the relatively moderate success of the Benson continuation novels.

In the 1980's we also had companies licensing Eon Productions elements for video games and computer games based on A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and License to Kill.

We also saw a repackaging of computer game developed in France that was totally unrelated to James Bond that became James Bond: The Stealth Affair.

In the 1990's we were given video games that were hits based on GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies.

Recently, we have EA Games purchasing the exclusive rights from Eon Productions and MGM Interactive to produce computer and video games based on the James Bond film series. Through their license, EA Games can use the 007 logo, gun barrel, the James Bond theme, plots, characters, and elements from the Eon Produced James Bond films.

Would Agent Under Fire, Nightfire, and Everything or Nothing have had the same appeal if they hadn't been able to use the gun barrel logo, the James Bond theme, the likeness or very similar likeness of Pierce Brosnan for the James Bond character, the Maurice Binder/Daniel Kleinman inspired title sequences of the games, and other attributes of the James Bond cinematic character and inventions from the Eon Productions film series?

For example, would a video game or computer game based on Raymond Benson's The Man with the Red Tattoo that could not use Eon Productions or MGM/UA-owned elements, such as the James Bond theme, the gun barrel, or the what we consider to be the Bondian-elements of the film series, have the same appeal for consumers? I can't see consumers taking much notice beyond a handful of James Bond fans or contributors to these forums.

It seems to me that a video game would only be successful if it incorporated elements that were recognizable to nine or ten year olds who are willing to throw a fit in the store if their parents don't make a purchase of the game. Do you think that anyone in in the target audience for video games is really going to recognize titles, characters, or elements from the James Bond literary series? Or even care about them?

[DLibrasnow]

So does EON own the cinematic rights to the Agatha Christie James Bond?

[Blofeld's Cat]

LOL

[Qwerty]

So does EON own the cinematic rights to the Agatha Christie James Bond?

For that little story?

[DLibrasnow]

Hey, it's a loophole. Perhaps whoever makes Silverfin can claim that the James Bond they are filming is the one from Christie's short story.

I can see EONs lawyers headed to the Christie estate now to try and secure the rights to that story.

[Qwerty]

That far beforehand, it's merely something to be left alone.

[DLibrasnow]

Loopholes are loopholes.

[Qwerty]

They won't all the same.

[DLibrasnow]

Right, which will leave the way open for someone else.

[zencat]

The popular consensus on this is it's just SilverFin marketing spin. Only Eon can make a Young Bond movie, and they ain't making a Young Bond movie.

[K1Bond007]

The popular consensus on this is it's just SilverFin marketing spin. Only Eon can make a Young Bond movie, and they ain't making a Young Bond movie.

I would think it would be a rare case in which they would purchase film rights from IFP. Cubby was kind of against that since he had his own writers that could write one at a lesser cost.

It's possible, however, improbable.

[Jim]

The popular consensus on this is it's just SilverFin marketing spin. Only Eon can make a Young Bond movie, and they ain't making a Young Bond movie.

Quite; this sort of stuff will help shift a few copies but it'll probably come to naught.

Happy enough to be proved wrong.

[Loomis]

I think Auntie Beeb should do "Silverfin" (and the other Higsons).

[Gri007]

One day it might happen. But it would to much like Harry Potter.

Eton - Hogwarts
Wilder Lawless - Harmony
Red Kelly - Ron Weesly

There seems to be quite a bit in common. If you've read Silverfin. You'll notice the resembelence

[Sam Fisher]

I sincerly hope not.

[DLibrasnow]

One day it might happen. But it would to much like Harry Potter.

Eton - Hogwarts
Wilder Lawless - Harmony
Red Kelly - Ron Weesly

There seems to be quite a bit in common. If you've read Silverfin. You'll notice the resembelence

Yes...I have noticed the happy similarities.

[David Schofield]

EON owns movie Bond. It's a business deal done with Ian Fleming and is perfectly fair. No one can complain.

If a Silverfin movie is to be made, it will be by EON or a newly-found subsidiary. However, with the length of time between the Bond movies these days, the logistics involved in them, and the example of the saga that is CR, is it likely they would have either the resources or the energy to tackle it?

[zencat]

Looks like Miramax founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein, now setting our to form a new company, are forsaking Young Bond for Alex Rider.

http://www.commander...item&item=22992

I do think Miramax Books has sort of left Young Bond at the alter -- not really stepping up with the marking push that was promised. Could it be when IFP said they were going to hold off on doing YB films Miramax lost interest in th rights they hold to the books?

[DLibrasnow]

It was interesting to find out recently that EON do not own the rights to the Gardner and Benson books. I always assumed they did, but found out (on good authority) that they do not.

Apparently Cubby had the chance once but said that he didn't see the need to pay for rights to the books when he could hire writers to write original stories with original titles.

Perhaps EONs hold on the cinematic 007 isn't as secure as people think?

[doublenoughtspy]

But Darren I'm pretty sure Michael Wilson said in an interview that they have automatic rights to Bond continuation novels.

And he even described how their print runs are in the 10,000s whereas Bond film audiences number in the 10s of millions.

While I agree that there may be some loopholes - I would think things like EON totally buying off the right to Bond's offspring (aka James Suzuki) such that IFP can't use him - means they've got quite a hold on rights.

Perhaps its an "option" type thing, where techincally EON does not own the rights to film Gardner and Benson novels - but if IFP ever wants to option those rights - they HAVE to give EON the first shot.

[DLibrasnow]

Perhaps its an "option" type thing, where techincally EON does not own the rights to film Gardner and Benson novels - but if IFP ever wants to option those rights - they HAVE to give EON the first shot.

Yes I believe this is the case. Sorry, didn't mean to infer anything different.

[Qwerty]

Looks like Miramax founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein, now setting our to form a new company, are forsaking Young Bond for Alex Rider.

http://www.commander...item&item=22992

I do think Miramax Books has sort of left Young Bond at the alter -- not really stepping up with the marking push that was promised. Could it be when IFP said they were going to hold off on doing YB films Miramax lost interest in th rights they hold to the books?

Have to wonder what would have come out of this all if Alex Rider hadn't stepped in though.

[K1Bond007]

It was interesting to find out recently that EON do not own the rights to the Gardner and Benson books. I always assumed they did, but found out (on good authority) that they do not.

Apparently Cubby had the chance once but said that he didn't see the need to pay for rights to the books when he could hire writers to write original stories with original titles.

Perhaps EONs hold on the cinematic 007 isn't as secure as people think?

My understanding (and this comes from the whole McClory/Sony vs MGM) is that MGM (UA), Danjaq and EON hold the exclusive cinematic rights to James Bond. IFP owns the literary. The two are mutally exclusive. Meaning EON doesn't own the stories IFP does and vise versa.

Even if IFP was confident enough that the cinematic exclusive rights weren't owned by EON/UA and believed they could sell the film rights to a Young Bond series, I guarentee MGM&gang would begin a pretty major lawsuit.

I'd also like to point out that the fact that EON has the ability to make completely original stories within the James Bond universe kind of sets a precedent that they hold exclusive rights to the cinematic version that goes beyond what Ian Fleming originally wrote. Thats IMHO anyway.

Edited by K1Bond007, 12 May 2005 - 07:32 PM.

[Johnboy007]

I find it amusing that '"Young Bond" isn't Harry Potter', but Daniel Radcliffe is being considered to play him.