41 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

But doesn't Sony also have SPIDER-MAN, a franchise that's about as much of a sure thing as they come (I'd hazard a guess that it's currently the biggest franchise out there)? I think they can more than afford to take some risks - not insane risks, of course, but, hey, they're the ones who wanted Craig.

Still, maybe the idea that Sony will grab the Bond franchise by the scruff of the neck and give it an almighty kick up the ****, relaunching it with plenty of brave and good ideas.... maybe that's nothing more than just fanboy wishful thinking on my part. But for some reason I feel the series is now in reasonably safe hands.

[Pussfeller]

I agree that the Bond franchise is far less likely to fail, and far more likely to be well-promoted, in its current position. I always saw MGM as a dusty old corpse of a company. You never heard anything about them, all their best movies are in black and white, they're primarily associated with Tom and Jerry cartoons, etc. It was a company on life support, namely James Bond.

On the other hand, Sony is huge, powerful, and very much alive, although (apart from Spiderman and a few other prospects) its film division is clearly undersized, if not exactly unsucessful. Let's just say that they have room for growth in that department.

So yes, I agree that the Bond franchise is in good hands, should it need any assistance, but no, I don't expect (or hope for) any immediate intervention in the affairs of EON. There's no pressing evidence that they don't know what they're doing. They were right to get rid of Brosnan, despite everyone's objections, and I guarantee the new actor will be just as popular and profitable. Their only really questionable decision is their retention of Purvis and Wade, the twin bowel obstructions of the Bond franchise. If CR turns out to be a poorly-written dud, Sony has every right to protect its investment, as long as that involves firing Pervert and Wanker and replacing them with, say, Raymond Benson. After all, the last American screenwriter, Richard Maibaum, worked out pretty well.

Edited by Pussfeller, 03 August 2005 - 04:25 PM.

[Seannery]

Well since Broccoli family owns 100% of Bond, Sony can't dictate to Eon BUT since Sony owns exclusive distribution rights to Bond ,for I think for about 12 years or so, they can have some say or else they could stifle Bond from being distributed over the length of the contract. So Sony could have an de facto veto if they really don't like something Eon plans to do.

[K1Bond007]

K13 I found the thread mentioned above and have bumped it back up.

CBn Staff member doublenoughtspy was the member who wrote:

Goldeneye Issue 4, Spring 1996

Article: The Road to Goldeneye by John Cork

"In the 1980s, Cubby and Dana Broccoli bought out United Artists' 50% share of Danjaq, which UA had obtained from Harry Saltzman in 1975. As sole owner of Danjaq, Broccoli maintained total creative control over the James Bond product, but MGM/UA were increasingly demanding greater involvement"

That makes absolutely no sense to tell you the truth. Why would MGM/UA even dare to demand greater involvment if they sold their half of Danjaq back to the Broccolis. I realise John Cork has amazing prestige within the James Bond community and so forth, but it's curious that he's the only source that I can find on this. Everyone else still claims the 50% UA/Broccoli deal. I'd like to see Cork specifically address this again in a little more detail.

The whole thing just doesn't seem right to me.

[Loomis]

There's no pressing evidence that they don't know what they're doing.

Hmmm.... what about the last few films, though? Personally, I think the series has felt pretty stale since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS; I've enjoyed a couple of the post-TLD outings, of course, but, really, the fire went out quite some time ago.

It's because I think that, in the late '80s, the franchise became a pale shadow of what it had been (although that hasn't killed my fandom, funnily enough) that I have this wild hope that Sony will somehow lay down the law and turn things around. Make Bond as exciting as Bourne again, or at least take things back to the days when a 007 flick would consist of more than just mindless explosions and machine gun battles. What happened to those jaw-dropping stunts of yesteryear? That old-time sophistication and charm?

They were right to get rid of Brosnan, despite everyone's objections, and I guarantee the new actor will be just as popular and profitable.

Absolutely.

If CR turns out to be a poorly-written dud, Sony has every right to protect its investment, as long as that involves firing Pervert and Wanker and replacing them with, say, Raymond Benson. After all, the last American screenwriter, Richard Maibaum, worked out pretty well.

Benson would be a great choice for the films.

[Pussfeller]

Well since Broccoli family owns 100% of Bond, Sony can't dictate to Eon BUT since Sony owns exclusive distribution rights to Bond ,for I think for about 12 years or so, they can have some say or else they could stifle Bond from being distributed over the length of the contract.  So Sony could have an de facto veto if they really don't like something Eon plans to do.

Precisely, although EON really has the upper hand. EON needs Sony, but Sony needs EON more. Sony is unlikely to do anything really drastic, although they can gum up the works if they decide they really don't like where the Bond franchise is headed. Overall, I can't imagine any real differences. As long as Bond remains profitable, Sony will probably leave EON alone.

[k13oharts]

DLibrasnow,

Thanks for bumping up the thread
( http://debrief.comma...wtopic=7958&hl= )

Somebody should update these two Wikipedia articles though:
EON Productions

The UA interest passed, with acquisition, to MGM and subsequently to a partnership led by Sony and Comcast.

Danjaq, L.L.C.

[DLibrasnow]

It was news to me also K13....

But, I trust John Cork on his knowledge of all things James Bond and (having met Charles in person) I trust doublenoughtspy to post accurate information.

[k13oharts]

Yes, I would trust John Cork on his expertise

For the uninitiated on "who" John Cork is:
DVDFile.com Interview with John Cork
IMDB Article

[Skin 17]

If Sony does let EON handle it then it will be great. I don't expect Casino Royale to flop in terms of Box Office revenue.

[Stephenson]

I think Sony's level of involvement and the type of decisions they make will be dependent on a few different things:

1. Legally, how much voice do they have in the decision making? Eon is actually in a fairly powerful position here, IMO. If they don't like what Sony is pushing, they can just hold up production. Afterall, they have money coming in constantly from Bond: reruns, DVD sales, merchandising, etc. Sony is the one that's desperate for a hit, according to the Business Week article.

2. How long is the drought at the box office going to continue? People have been calling it a trend, but how long before it is recognized as a serious issue or a permanent state of affairs? The decision making process might involve more thought concerning the profitability of the film in the context of diminshed returns. If they decide to restrict the budget of the actual production (which I think Sony controls) to maximize income we could see a Bond film made for $70 million or so (not including marketing). It all boils down to Sony concluding either : a) the public wants more bang for the buck (ie bigger budget, more explosions, DAD 2) or the public is looking for more character and story driven action films. After the "Stealth" bomb, which I agree must have looked great on paper as a concept, maybe Sony will spend more time actually looking at a script before throwing money at a production. Or maybe the'll decide that bigger is the only way to go and the audience will only go see something that totally blows them out of the water.

3. How do Sony and Eon see Bond? Some make it sound like Eon is the keeper of the grail, but these are the people that greenlit the enjoyable but souless and ultimately forgettable DAD. Sony is mostly known for bigger budget epics, but Spiderman is a character driven movie at its heart and they take chances with directors and actors. Will they actually see eye to eye on a direction?

Just my idle speculation. Personally, as I've always said, I'm expecting a Goldeneye/FYEO/TLD level of film (yes, I'd rank them all about the same), based loosely on the novel, staring an actor in his early thirties we didn't anticipate, and featuring a lot more Sony products (anyone know if Sony has interest in Fiat? ). Good, solid entertainment for me (who is ultimately the only person I care about when I'm watching a film), but nothing groundbreaking.

[hcmv007]

to me that is just being lazy and irresponsible on their part.

Explain to me why you think ite irresponsible on their part? I'm at a loss to understand your logic on this.

EON doesn't owe the fan community anything, they are not making the movies for the fans, but for the general movie going public. As well they should!

And, the general public has a lot more on their minds than who will be the next James Bond.

Okay, so we know at least where shooting will take place, the cars, etc. But I deem Eon irresponsible in the fact that there has been no announcement of an official start date for shooting and no release date for CR whenever it's finished. As far as casting, I won't get into using vicious language, but since actors start projeccts so far in advance, you have to get them before you can't use them (Clive Owen for example). Campbell will probably not direct the next Bond film after this, so the producers should have cast Bond already. The script is finished, unless they are just rewriting some scenes. Location shoots for things like buildings and mountains should be taking place now.

Now for the second paragraph, I agree, but I never said EOn owes me anything. I was venting MY frustration as a fan, not for every Bond fan in general. Different strokes, for different folks.

Yes, I know the world does not revolve around whomever gets the role of 007. A lot more important things are going on. Hope that clears it up for you DLibrasnow. I apologize for not being clearer earlier.

I got this off of Wikipedia:
According to the Daily Bulletin, on May 18, 2005 Michael G. Wilson while speaking to students at Harvey Mudd stated, "I know that many of you have questions about the next James Bond film. I generally get asked the same questions wherever I go. I've found that nine answers will take care of most of those questions."
"I don't know which actor; January 17; October 19, 2006; Aston Martin; 'Casino Royale'; Martin Campbell; Prague and South Africa; yes, Judi Dench will be back; and no, Halle Berry won't reprise, but I'd love to make another film with her."
As of May 18, 2005 no actor has been chosen for the role of James Bond.
January 17, 2006 is the first day of filming.
The date October 19, 2006 is currently unknown, but speculated to be the tentative release date for the film.

I don't know if January 17th will be the definite first day of filming, but if EoN doesn't have their stuff sorted out by then, then I'd rather have them postpone the movie until they do (even though TND was made on a rushed schedule and turned out fine. However, they already had a cast, definite locations as well as a decided direction to take the series in unlike CR.) If this means that I have to wait a few extra months for a quality movie, then so be it.

Thanks for the dates. I don't mind waiting, I've waited six years for a decent Bond film, I can wait some more. Jan start for shooting? That's waht had me worried, most actors know their plans for next year by now, so that's why I deemed Eon irresponsible, and from some interviews where even the producers questioned where they are going. I didn't want people to think I'm bashing Campbell, I know he's busy. Just want the producers to have a firm idea of where they want to go, taht's all.