17 replies to this topic

[Turn]

The removal of yet another executive at MGM got me thinking. With Bond being the only "tentpole" franchise at MGM, the only real moneymaker, does anybody ever wonder how much different the series would be under another studio, say DreamWorks or 20th Century Fox?

Would it make the series any better, would there be more money, higher caliber stars or would the opposite effect happen with too much input from the "suits" and less control from the Broccoli family? We all know other studios have been hot to get the McClory-based Bond series off the ground, so the interest is obviously there.

Or does the fact Bond is MGM's only cash cow mean they step back and rightly let the Broccolis do what they've done successfully for 40 years?

Any thoughts?

[General Koskov]

That's interesting, but I'd miss the lion roaring. That, and the UA 'sparkling logo', get me all giddy in anticipation for the gunbarrel.

One way this would have helped is not having the six-year hiatus. I can't say that I missed Bond those six years because GoldenEye was my first film, but I do think another film in '91 would have taken some of the stigma away from Licence to Kill.

[Hardyboy]

If DAD proves to be a big hit, then MGM should give the Broccolis however much money they want or need and then keep their corporate noses out of it. MGM has come up with nothing but lousy ideas, such as making the series "more American." If that's the kind of thinking that predominates where the lion roars, it's no wonder they've had nothing but flops.

I'm not sure if the Bonds would be any different under any other studio. I think Dreamworks is actually sort of a "hands-off" operation, so they'd likely let EON do what it's done for 40 years; but other studios would probably put the same pressure on EON that MGM has--to make the series profitable, filled with action and special effects, etc., etc.

[Xenobia]

I am not sure when MGM took over UA...but for the longest time, UA was the sole producer of the Bond films. When the two companies merged (and I think that was around the release of "Goldeneye"), the lion started roaring.

As long as we've got the "rev" of the engine on Bond's supercar, I don't need to hear Leo roar.

Let them divorce...if MGM's past marketing is any indication...it's no major loss for Eon. They made great movies with UA and they can make great movies with another Movie Studio who will be very happy to have them!

-- Xenobia

[Hardyboy]

Xen, I'm surprised you haven't heard this. The old United Artists folded around 1982, after the huge financial disaster that was Heaven's Gate. MGM bought up UA and the two companies merged--it was before Octopussy that the lion first roared. For whatever reason, in the early '90s, MGM/UA decided to separate in name and not in fact, which is why GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies were released under the "sparkling" new United Artists logo. I don't know why the Bond films now appear under the MGM logo instead of the traditional UA, but it's all the same company regardless.

[Xenobia]

Oh Hardyboy:

In 1982, I was eight years old, and all MGM was to me was the maker of some really cool black and white movies. (Turner had not learned to colorize by that point.)

I remember watching GE with director's commentary and both Campell and Wilson were talking about the new UA logo, so that's why I thought the merger had happened then.

New name, old name...if MGM publicity thinks they can save money by not promoting Bond because so many other anniversary activities are going on...trust me, they will let other people do the work for them.

-- Xenobia

[Mister Asterix]

Originally posted by Hardyboy (edited)
...I don't know why the Bond films now appear under the MGM logo instead of the traditional UA, but it's all the same company regardless.

A few years ago it was decided that United Artists would make the companies 'Art' films and MGM would make the main stream films. This decision only effected one film that was in production at the time and that film was The World is not Enough. All of the other UA films at the time were Art films. So mid filming The World is not Enough went from being a UA film to being a MGM film. So all future Bond films will start with the lion's roar.

Until another decision is made.

[zencat]

It's a very tricky question. On one hand, I'd love to see what a finger-on-the-pulse studio like DreamWorks would do with Bond marketing-wise. But would the balance of power shift if Eon partnered with a more powerful studio? Would a DreamWorks or Sony insist on McG as director or make some only catch-the-trend-of-the-moment choice about story or star? Ben Affleck as Bond? Couldn't you see this happening at a studio like WB or Paramount? I don't know... Maybe it's best that Bond stay at a screw-up studio like MGM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I agree, zencat. Better the devil you know than one you don't.

When you think about, there have been two "Bond movies" made by other studios, and well....do I need to go any further?

[Harmsway]

I can't help thinking that Bond will eventually switch studios. MGM will disappear and then we'll have this great fiasco where the new studio wrecks a Bond film. But then, the next time, they get it right and the film is excellent and a success.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by Harmsway (edited to make a point)
I can't help thinking that Bond will eventually switch studios....and then we'll have this great fiasco where the new studio wrecks a Bond film. But then, the next time, they get it right and the film is excellent and a success.

I could pretend to be Jim and say something like: "change the word studio to actor and you have the Licence To Kill/GoldenEye transition down to a tee."

[Xenobia]

But you are not Jim, Patch, and the transition between LTK and GE wasn't so bad....just radically different.

(HUSH Jim! I can hear you snickering from here!)

I also agree with Zencat...we are dealing with the devil we don't know. Hopefully Lucifer will return to the light. Until then, we hold our breaths and send good thoughts to MGM.

-- Xenobia

[TGO]

Originally posted by Blofeld's Cat

When you think about, there have been two "Bond movies" made by other studios, and well....do I need to go any further?

But, then again those were made by people, who basically didn't know what the hell they were doing. Those two films weren't made by the geniuses that the Bonds have depended on for all of these years.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia
But you are not Jim, Patch, and the transition between LTK and GE wasn't so bad....just radically different.

(HUSH Jim!  I can hear you snickering from here!)

-- Xenobia

Howls of derisive laughter. I am bereft of ribs; my sides have split.

One day I will provide you with my list of what is so very wrong with Licence to Kill but it's quite a long list and I become distressingly lacrimose during it. But know this: Timothy Dalton "doing acting" isn't the principal reason I loathe it so.

On subject, and although this is suspiciously conservative (I stress the small c) Bond probably is better off where it is. If MGM does go belly up in the manner it's always been threatening to do, it might be better to end it than...oh I dunno, sell it to Miramax (which will mean Tarantino) or Disney (which will...Oh God, that'd be terrible).

[Dalton]

Personally I can't see 007 moving studio's. MGM has been slated as going down before but this never seems to happen.

If it does slide, AOL-Time-Warner will probobly buy them out and use it as a subsiduary.

But with Bond films produced on the 2year cycle, this proves to be their bi-yearly hit and keeps them floating nicely.

If they had to move I'd be worried for 007's integrity under another banner.

[License To Kill]

I can see the new gunbarrel: Mickey Mouse comes across the screen and no blood of course, just fairies and flowers. Thats what Disney would do. I would kill myself in a strange and irrational way if that happened. ::cringes::


~LTK~

[Hardyboy]

Remember, Disney owns ABC, the network that put a black bra on Plenty O'Toole and censored a lot of the "racist" dialogue in LALD. I think we know what kind of Bond film the Mouse would make. . .

[PaulZ108]

Disney + Bond = blasphemous horror

Also, I can't believe ABC (evil! evil!) censored Diamonds are Forever like that after showing the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show and having shown partial nudity on some of their shows in the past. To add to the insult they have it hosted by a bunch of women who spout out inaccuracies constantly.