24 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

What's stopping someone from buying the rights to and filming the post-Fleming books?

Or have those rights been sold already? If so, who owns them? Or are they jealously guarded by Ian Fleming Publications?

Might we one day see a studio use the works of Gardner and/or Benson as the basis for a Bond film or Bond franchise with no connection to MGM/Eon?

[Genrewriter]

I would imagine they are jealously guarded by Ian Fleming Productions. As far as a rival series goes, look at the Kevin McClory situation for a good example of what happens when somebody tries to make a Bond series outside of EON. Not that they don't have the right to protect their property, but the chances of them letting anybody get even as much as McClory did are slim to none.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Genrewriter

I would imagine they are jealously guarded by Ian Fleming Productions.  As far as a rival series goes, look at the Kevin McClory situation for a good example of what happens when somebody tries to make a Bond series outside of EON.  

And yet McClory ultimately prevailed (insofar as he managed to make NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, despite what I gather was pretty stiff opposition from MGM/Eon).

Personally, I'd like rival filmmakers to get their hands on the continuation novels if (as it appears) Eon aren't interested in going anywhere near them. Some of them would make excellent films, IMO, especially some of the Bensons ("Never Dream of Dying", "The Man With the Red Tattoo"), and might provide the basis for a more "realistic" and refreshing alternative Bond series to run alongside MGM/Eon's output.

[Genrewriter]

True, you do have a point there. I'd be interested in how another set of producers would approach the character as well. A little variety never hurt anybody.

[Triton]

I think that if Glidrose, now Ian Fleming Publications, could sell the film rights to the Amis, Gardner, and Benson continuation novels they would have done so long ago. Buying these novels would have allowed Sony to create a rival James Bond series, they wouldn't have had to make a deal with Kevin McClory.

Eon Productions must have exclusive movie rights to the James Bond and the other literary characters that allowed them to continue the movie series after they ran out of Ian Fleming titles. Eon probably owns all iterations of the James Bond character on film with the exception of the film scripts created by Jack Whittingham, Ian Fleming, and Kevin McClory. If this was not the case, The Living Daylights would have been the last Eon produced James Bond film or we would have gotten titles like Property of a Lady, Risico, and Quantum of Solace.

[zencat]

Eon owns all the movie rights on the James Bond character, and this automatically means they own all the movie rights to the continuation novels.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

Eon owns all the movie rights on the James Bond character, and this automatically means they own all the movie rights to the continuation novels.  

Really? Hmmm.... in some ways that seems a pity.

[Triton]

In an interview Michael G. Wilson was asked this question by Steve Biodrowski that appears on 007Forever.com:

[quote]HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED USING, FOR INSTANCE, THE JOHN GARDNER NOVELS AS THE BASIS FOR FILMS?

I haven`t

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Triton

its clear that Ian Fleming Publications cannot sell the rights of the continuation books to someone else.  

Why not? If Eon doesn't have the film rights to the continuation novels, presumably they're still there for the selling. The question is: would anyone buy them if, as zencat states, Eon owns "all the movie rights on the James Bond character" (which presumably would cancel out the benefits of buying the continuation novels)?

In theory, could a studio/producer buy the rights to "The Man With the Red Tattoo" and make a film adaptation, using Benson's story and characters (Reiko Tamura, Goro Yoshida, etc.) - using everything apart from characters like James Bond, M and so on, and changing the name of the hero? Why anyone would want to do that is another matter, since the continuation novels do not have particularly wonderful stories - obviously, the only reason to buy the rights would be to gain some sort of purchase on the James Bond character.

I'm just wondering if there are any grey areas, any loopholes that might be exploited....

Some very interesting reading there, Triton. Thanks.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by zencat
Eon owns all the movie rights on the James Bond character, and this automatically means they own all the movie rights to the continuation novels.

Not totally true....Kevin McClory...
EON did sign a deal with Ian Fleming that allowed them to make James Bond movies for $100,000 a year.

[Triton]

DLibrasnow do you know any more details about the movie rights agreement with Fleming?

We know that Saltzman bought the movie rights to all of the James Bond novels and short stories written by Ian Fleming, with the exception of Thunderball which was still owned by Kevin McClory. Also according to the agreement only the title of The Spy Who Loved Me could be used.

And so I guess that Eon Productions still gives the Ian Fleming Estate $100,000 per year for the film and television rights to the James Bond characters.

Loomis you know that if a loop hole was exploited that Eon Productions and/or MGM/UA would sue. It would probably be a contest of who has the deepest pockets and I believe that Eon or MGM/UA would prevail in a legal action.

[Loomis]

I'm sure this matter has been looked into very carefully over the years; and I'm equally sure that Eon Productions has always been keen to do everything in its power to ensure that rival filmmakers are unable to use the Gardner/Benson novels (and thereby use James Bond).

I wonder, though, how much power Eon Productions has.

As I understand it, Ian Fleming Publications (formerly Glidrose) is basically the business wing of the Fleming family. I'm sure the IFP folks are determined to keep as much of James Bond within the family as possible, and not to permit every last piece of Bond to be owned lock, stock and barrel by Eon (I imagine this is why Eon has been unable to buy IFP/Glidrose - and surely Eon has tried to do so in the past?).

I imagine IFP is keen to sit on the film rights to the Gardners and Bensons (and "Colonel Sun", if Eon doesn't own that book). Heck, the rights to any one of the continuation novels must be a potential goldmine for IFP, if (and it's a big "if") buying the rights meant that the James Bond character, as part of the novel's content, could be used.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Triton

Loomis you know that if a loop hole was exploited that Eon Productions and/or MGM/UA would sue. It would probably be a contest of who has the deepest pockets and I believe that Eon or MGM/UA would prevail in a legal action.  

True. And even if Eon were to give its blessing to an "unofficial" or "rival" Bond film (which is unlikely), the makers of said film would be taking an enormous financial gamble. They'd be making a Bond film, but without the ready-made marketing and in-built audience of the current Brosnan series. Budget-wise, they'd be very unlikely to have nearly as much to play with as MGM/Eon. They wouldn't have MGM/Eon's "muscle". Who would they cast as Bond? Connery? Too old. Dalton? Well, he's too old now, too, and hardly a box office draw. Which bankable A-list star would be willing or able to play James Bond for them?

It would be a tremendous amount of hard work, at enormous expense, for a potential return that would almost certainly be much more easily achieved by making some generic action movie, or indeed by adapting "The Man With the Red Tattoo" and simply using Benson's plot and supporting characters and not James Bond.

No, unless the world's most bankable A-list actor (currently [arguably] Tom Cruise - not Bond material) and the world's most powerful director had a burning desire to make a Bond film outside the Eon series and the means to realize that desire, going to the Gardner/Benson novels in a bid to make a Bond flick outside the official series simply wouldn't be worthwhile in terms of risk versus reward. The game just wouldn't be worth the candle.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Triton

And so I guess that Eon Productions still gives the Ian Fleming Estate $100,000 per year for the film and television rights to the James Bond characters.

That's correct...Actually it could be 100,000 pounds sterling, I just remember the figure (100,000 per year).

[DLibrasnow]

There is a thread in the John Gardner thread that argues (quite successfully) that the Gardner novels have already been filmed by EON.

[Triton]

For those of you who are interested, you can find a link to the thread DLibrasnow is referring to below.

Licence Reused: The John Gardner... Films

[ray t]

the name JAMES BOND when it comes to anything other than literature (including computer games, tv, cinema) is owned by DANJAQ, a Limited Liability Company.

anyone making anything anywhere with the name JAMES BOND does so with a 100% guarantee that they'd be commiting financial suicide. the courts and the legal system have no other choice.

let me repeat:

Danjaq LLC own the name JAMES BOND in cinematic circles

end of story

they also own the 007 logo
they also own the iris and gunbarrel symbol
they also own the james bond theme

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t
the name JAMES BOND when it comes to anything other than literature (including computer games, tv, cinema) is owned by DANJAQ, a Limited Liability Company.

anyone making anything anywhere with the name JAMES BOND does so with a 100% guarantee that they'd be commiting financial suicide. the courts and the legal system have no other choice.

let me repeat:

Danjaq LLC own the name JAMES BOND in cinematic circles

end of story

they also own the 007 logo
they also own the iris and gunbarrel symbol
they also own the james bond theme

I don't think anyone is questionning this assertion ray!

[Jim]

Originally posted by Loomis


As I understand it, Ian Fleming Publications (formerly Glidrose) is basically the business wing of the Fleming family.  

Technically, the Fleming merchant bank is probably the business end - and that has a substantial holding in IFP.

Eon own the film rights to the James Bond character. I'm pretty sure that IFP could sell the film rights to such of the continuation novels as they still hold the rights to (although I rather suspect Eon have those to but just aren't using them (well, not explicitly) - prevents anyone else using them, "spoiler tactic" and clears off the real or a potential KMc) - however, the adaptation of the novel would have to proceed without the James Bond character (or assorted sundry characters).

One wonders what the point of that would be.

Unless, to create mischief, IFP starts negotiating with Sony to have an adaptation of (say) Never Dream of Dying (its basic story, anyway) turn up as...xXx3. Oh, the irony of it...

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

Eon own the film rights to the James Bond character.  

I reckon they do now, having bought the rights to NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (I believe).

And - forgive my unpleasant cynicism - I wonder whether Eon bought NSNA chiefly to stop McClory or whoever owned or would in the future own the "property" from selling the remake rights to someone who (let's say) 15 years from now might want to cash in on James Bond by creating (essentially) a third film version of THUNDERBALL (luring a 60-something Brosnan out of retirement to play Bond, perhaps, competing against an "official" MGM/Eon flick with Jack Davenport as 007)?

No.

No, I'm sure Eon bought NSNA because they thought it was a very lovely little film in need of a good, caring home.

[SnakeEyes]

I hate to (slightly) go off topic, but what the world needs is not another James Bond, but another good spy series.

The only way something like this would work is if it distanced itself from the current Bond and filled the gap left between total realism (too uptight and stiff) and laughable overblown action (which is what the franchise has degenerated to).

Indianna Jones was something that filled this gap quite nicely, look at 'raiders': it touches some serious subjects (the occult, religion, nazis, world wars) but deals with them in such a way as to be faithful but entertaining. Jones is a real/gritty hero, but he's not overly violent or offensive. I think a new spy that was in a similar mould of the literary Bond mixed with an Indy type, could go quite far. I know i'd pay to see it if it turned out well.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by SnakeEyes

The only way something like this would work is if it distanced itself from the current Bond and filled the gap left between total realism (too uptight and stiff) and laughable overblown action (which is what the franchise has degenerated to).

I think the Jack Ryan series filled that gap very nicely from 1990 to 1994 (when there were no Bond films). Writers like John Milius, Donald Stewart and Steven Zaillian did terrific work, as did directors John McTiernan and Phillip Noyce. But then the series went into limbo for some years (and I don't believe for a second that the return of 007 killed it off, BTW - I imagine the chief reason was that Harrison Ford hummed and hawed for a long time over whether to do a third Ryan outing), making an underwhelming return last year with the very silly THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (an emasculation of an excellent novel) and the very boring Ben Affleck.

[SnakeEyes]

Yeah, exactly. Proves that theres a good market for 'serious' spy/action/thriller.

I can dream

[Tarl_Cabot]

I loved Icebreaker but they're 'iced' out!

[Mister Asterix]

I understood from an interview I read with Benson years ago (may have been the Playboy interview), that Eon automatically bought an option to make each new James Bond book as it came out.