39 replies to this topic

[DominicGreene]

I've browsed around these forums for a while, but I haven't really came across this sort of topic before. It's not something that we like to particularly talk about, but I feel it's inevitable (hence the title):

 

When do you think the Bond series will end? 

 

I'll leave this question open to interpretation. I don't really have a say on it, but I'm curious as to what others would think. 

[AMC Hornet]

To quote Kissy Suzuki, "Not in my lifetime."

 

I hope.

[Guy Haines]

I think they'll still be releasing a new film every two or three years even after I've gone to join the "Choir Invisible" (To borrow from that Monty Python sketch about a dead parrot!) And I've no plans to join for a long time yet.

 

Pity I won't be around to see them.

[Dustin]

I think we have been through this discussion before, perhaps a few years ago. It pops up from time to time, usually during the dry spells of the series.

But to answer the initial question: I don't think there will be an end to the series in the foreseeable future. The brand 'James Bond, licensed to kill agent 007' is just too strong for the industry to ever let go of. And the series has already shown its ability to adapt to drastically changed circumstances, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be fit to do the same stunt in the future.

That said I suppose there may be longer intervals between films, and likely also a number of extended breaks and subsequent reboots, both of the under-the-rug variety (GE) and the head-on CR one. I don't even think an end of the copyright will change anything about Bond coming back. The potential of this hero is simply too valuable to let him go.

[Hansen]

Too late to die

[glidrose]

From this topic thread title, I thought the question would be something along the lines of "How many birds you shag?"

[S K Y F A L L]

[Simon]

I think it will largely depend on how well the current producing duo groom and educate their offspring to continue with the same ideologies.

 

Strength of character to withstand studio pressures and to not be afraid of reinvention even when at the top of a particular curve.

 

If the above can be depended upon, I can't foresee the series ending at all, even when other 'franchises' largely last for three or four films.  However, if the studios smell weakness, I can see them and their studio-like ideas drilling it into the ground in no time at all.

[When In Egypt]

It drives me absolutely nuts to think that they'll be making James Bond films after I'm gone (which they will).  Imagine not seeing new James Bond films!

[AMC Hornet]

I expect they have them in Heaven.

 

Hell is anywhere they don't have them.

[trevanian]

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton. 

[tdalton]

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton. 

 

With the exception of Quantum of Solace, I'd have to agree.

[Dustin]

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton.

To some extent I share that feeling about '89 being the end of the 'classic' Bond series. But not all those classics are better films than the stuff we've gotten since then. Some were pretty tedious, silly and not all that entertaining when you've watched them for the thousandth time. Quite a few times the worthwhile content is four and a half minutes in two hours running time, most of them during the titles.

I didn't like everything I was served since, not at all. But I see an effort is made to come up with new entries that have the potential to become modern Bond classics in their own right.

[DominicGreene]

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton.

With the exception of Quantum of Solace, I'd have to agree.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[The Shark]

 

 

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton.

With the exception of Quantum of Solace, I'd have to agree.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

 

 

The QOS fan is a strange but rare breed.

[tdalton]

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton.

With the exception of Quantum of Solace, I'd have to agree.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Why?

[Daddy Bond]

IMHO, six things could bring the series to an end...

 

(1) The economic colapse of western society (seriously, look how hard it was to get SF with all of MGM's difficulties).

(2) Sharia Law forced upon and enforced in the western world (Bond would be clearly outlawed - no Bond girls, no Bond drinking, etc.).

(3) A lack of public interest due to...(poor scripts, poor choice of actors, etc., fill in the blank)

(4) Time (It just fades away and is forgotten over time).

(5) The producers die or lose interest in producing more Bond movies.

(6) The end of the world.

[glidrose]

Can't be bothered reading replies here but has anybody wondered what happens when copyright elapses and every studio immediately rushes out their own Bond film, Bond cable movie, Bond miniseries? Fantastic way of killing the series by glutting the market. On the other hand with Bond in the public domain I expect to see a glut of Bond novels for many decades to come a la Sherlock Holmes. Imagine the competition to play Bond in all those rival productions? You may even get lead actors - shudder, lead American actors agreeing to play Bond in a single film.

[Sir_James_Moloney]

Can't be bothered reading replies here but has anybody wondered what happens when copyright elapses and every studio immediately rushes out their own Bond film, Bond cable movie, Bond miniseries? Fantastic way of killing the series by glutting the market. On the other hand with Bond in the public domain I expect to see a glut of Bond novels for many decades to come a la Sherlock Holmes. Imagine the competition to play Bond in all those rival productions? You may even get lead actors - shudder, lead American actors agreeing to play Bond in a single film.

 

As the law currently stands, that would be 1 Jan 2035 in the European Union and CR (and, therefore, the characters of James Bond, M, Felix Leiter and Miss Moneypenny) would become public domain in 2048 in the USA. Realistically though, I think we can be almost certain that the statutory copyright terms in both the EU and USA will be extended before then (there are just too many big entertainment companies pushing for the laws to be changed... and they're making their arguments on a fairly sound legal basis)

Edited by Sir_James_Moloney, 12 May 2013 - 02:27 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

I'm not going to worry about that - I'll be dead by then.

Enduring a potential glut will be your problem, next gen.

[Dustin]

 Realistically though, I think we can be almost certain that the statutory copyright terms in both the EU and USA will be extended before then (there are just too many big entertainment companies pushing for the laws to be changed... and they're making their arguments on a fairly sound legal basis)

 

 

Do they? I'm not sure the mere fact there are currently a number of franchises based on the exploitation of characters whose expiring copyright might force big entertainment players to search for new original content is a valid argument. Other characters became public domain without copyright holders and industry forcing their own interests down our throats, why should Bond be different? It's important to look at the consequences of a respective character becoming a public domain subject. When the copyright expires that doesn't mean the holder isn't in a position to use his property any more, he merely can't do so exclusively. In Eon's case they could of course continue to produce Bond films, with the added advantage of using their own trademark elements - gun-barrel, 007 logo, so on - still exclusively. Only, such productions would finally have to compete with other non-Eon productions. I have no fear for Eon's fate there. I'm not even sure the contenders would rush to the starting blocks. Bond at the cinema without the Eon trademark - or the trademark in the 'wrong' place - has a difficult standing.

 

The copyright was originally intended as a limited monopoly, not an indefinite one. Of course the pressure is on to stretch existing laws to previously unheard of limits, whenever large sums of money are involved. But that doesn't mean original intent of these laws - protecting the originator and his heirs for a definite time - should be completely ignored.  

Edited by Dustin, 12 May 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Sir_James_Moloney]

 

 Realistically though, I think we can be almost certain that the statutory copyright terms in both the EU and USA will be extended before then (there are just too many big entertainment companies pushing for the laws to be changed... and they're making their arguments on a fairly sound legal basis)

 

 

Do they? I'm not sure the mere fact there are currently a number of franchises based on the exploitation of characters whose expiring copyright might force big entertainment players to search for new original content is a valid argument. Other characters became public domain without copyright holders and industry forcing their own interests down our throats, why should Bond be different? It's important to look at the consequences of a respective character becoming a public domain subject. When the copyright expires that doesn't mean the holder isn't in a position to use his property any more, he merely can't do so exclusively. In Eon's case they could of course continue to produce Bond films, with the added advantage of using their own trademark elements - gun-barrel, 007 logo, so on - still exclusively. Only, such productions would finally have to compete with other non-Eon productions. I have no fear for Eon's fate there. I'm not even sure the contenders would rush to the starting blocks. Bond at the cinema without the Eon trademark - or the trademark in the 'wrong' place - has a difficult standing.

 

The copyright was originally intended as a limited monopoly, not an indefinite one. Of course the pressure is on to stretch existing laws to previously unheard of limits, whenever large sums of money are involved. But that doesn't mean original intent of these laws - protecting the originator and his heirs for a definite time - should be completely ignored.  

 

 

All your points are absolutely valid Dustin. It's certainly the case that the entertainment companies are attempting to push the copyright terms to previously unheard of limits. When it was pointed out that the late Sonny Bono's wish to extend the copyright term to "forever" was unconstitutional, Jack Valentini suggested - quite seriously - that it be extended to "forever minus one day"

 

When I say that "they're making their arguments on a fairly sound legal basis", I don't mean that their arguments are necessarily correct. But they're in a solid position to argue that copyright law was intended to protect "the originator and his heirs for a definite time", exactly as you say, but that the time period originally settled upon couldn't account for how long the intellectual property would be valuable to those heirs

 

I imagine MGM/Danjaq, for example, would argue that  they have spent billions of dollars investing  in the James Bond film franchise and that it would give their competitors an unfair competitive advantage if they were able to to profit from their own James Bond films without having shared any of the risk in that investment.

 

Again, I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning (e.g. if The Walt Disney Company lasts for 1000 years, its copyright on Mickey Mouse should last for 1095 years...) but it has some merit hence why I think it will certainly be up for serious legal debate.

 

 

Edited by Sir_James_Moloney, 12 May 2013 - 06:28 PM.

[Dustin]

 

 

 Realistically though, I think we can be almost certain that the statutory copyright terms in both the EU and USA will be extended before then (there are just too many big entertainment companies pushing for the laws to be changed... and they're making their arguments on a fairly sound legal basis)

 

 

Do they? I'm not sure the mere fact there are currently a number of franchises based on the exploitation of characters whose expiring copyright might force big entertainment players to search for new original content is a valid argument. Other characters became public domain without copyright holders and industry forcing their own interests down our throats, why should Bond be different? It's important to look at the consequences of a respective character becoming a public domain subject. When the copyright expires that doesn't mean the holder isn't in a position to use his property any more, he merely can't do so exclusively. In Eon's case they could of course continue to produce Bond films, with the added advantage of using their own trademark elements - gun-barrel, 007 logo, so on - still exclusively. Only, such productions would finally have to compete with other non-Eon productions. I have no fear for Eon's fate there. I'm not even sure the contenders would rush to the starting blocks. Bond at the cinema without the Eon trademark - or the trademark in the 'wrong' place - has a difficult standing.

 

The copyright was originally intended as a limited monopoly, not an indefinite one. Of course the pressure is on to stretch existing laws to previously unheard of limits, whenever large sums of money are involved. But that doesn't mean original intent of these laws - protecting the originator and his heirs for a definite time - should be completely ignored.  

 

 

All your points are absolutely valid Dustin. It's certainly the case that the entertainment companies are attempting to push the copyright terms to previously unheard of limits. When it was pointed out that the late Sonny Bono's wish to extend the copyright term to "forever" was unconstitutional, Jack Valentini suggested - quite seriously - that it be extended to "forever minus one day"

 

When I say that "they're making their arguments on a fairly sound legal basis", I don't mean that their arguments are necessarily correct. But they're in a solid position to argue that copyright law was intended to protect "the originator and his heirs for a definite time", exactly as you say, but that the time period originally settled upon couldn't account for how long the intellectual property would be valuable to those heirs

 

I imagine MGM/Danjaq, for example, would argue that  they have spent billions of dollars investing  in the James Bond film franchise and that it would give their competitors an unfair competitive advantage if they were able to to profit from their own James Bond films without having shared any of the risk in that investment.

 

Again, I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning (e.g. if The Walt Disney Company lasts for 1000 years, its copyright on Mickey Mouse should last for 1095 years...) but it has some merit hence why I think it will certainly be up for serious legal debate.

 

 

 

I completely agree there, I'm quite positive such questions will be debated in the near future. In fact there is one case Leslie S. Klinger vs. the Conan Doyle estate currently which tries to settle first moves by copyright holders to expand their legal rights. The outcome of this case could provide a precedent for the entire branch of copyright law, for better or worse. And if indeed the industry was allowed to shape these laws to their own preferences this would in my view damage originality and the impetus to create new content in arts and culture just as much as a complete absence of protected copyrights would. Because then there would not be any willingness to invest time and money into new creations when the old ones are guaranteed to pay interest indefinitely.

 

For Bond's particular case I suppose there may even be an ironic twist of fate in the future. I could well see a future case where the argument goes along the lines of "cinematic Bond is a mostly independent character from the literary version and must thus be considered a joint creation of Ian Fleming and Danjaq/Eon represented by Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman". The result would be a claim extending far beyond the one concentrating merely on Ian Fleming's literary creation. I believe first moves in that direction may already have been made by assembling the literary rights under the mantle of Danjaq/Eon, according to the copyright of CARTE BLANCHE IIRC. Ironic considering how McClory tried his best to push the same argument in his time. 

Edited by Dustin, 12 May 2013 - 08:46 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

I can't divulge anything not already mentioned here, I just hope it will carry on for the forseeable future for my little boy to enjoy and grow up with like his Daddy did, and his Great-Granded before him who introduced the series to him all those years ago.

 

It's too big to let fizzle away and there is always constant evidence to critics and the industry that audiences still love and will pay out for James Bond if given the dedicated passion it deserves.

 

I hope I don't see an end in my lifetime.

[AMC Hornet]

Let it die with me, for a world without Bond isn't worth living in...

[glidrose]

 

I believe first moves in that direction may already have been made by assembling the literary rights under the mantle of Danjaq/Eon, according to the copyright of CARTE BLANCHE IIRC.

 

Trademark, not copyright. IFP still has the copyrights.

[Dustin]

 

I believe first moves in that direction may already have been made by assembling the literary rights under the mantle of Danjaq/Eon, according to the copyright of CARTE BLANCHE IIRC.

 

Trademark, not copyright. IFP still has the copyrights.

 

 

Ah, yes. Different things. Whereby the trademark of course concerns the future use of the character and is as such the main monetary concern for the holder, provided it can withstand the public domain.

[Grard Bond]

I know it's very selfish of me, but I rather have them stopped when I am still alive, then knowing that they wil still releasing them when I'm no longe there.

[AMC Hornet]

Let it die with me, for a world without Bond isn't worth living in...

 

I know it's very selfish of me, but I rather have them stopped when I am still alive, then knowing that they wil still releasing them when I'm no longe there.

Wot I said.

[Eric Stromberg]

 

 

 

1989 ... to one degree or another it has all been blue mondays for me post-Dalton.

With the exception of Quantum of Solace, I'd have to agree.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Why?

 

 

It's a dark and lonely path for us QoS afficianados. Light a candle for our twisted souls when you spot us wandering the wastelands.

 

Kind of a shame it won't be in the public domain until 2048+. I mean, could you imagine what Woody Allen could do with 007?

Edited by Eric Stromberg, 13 May 2013 - 07:10 PM.