1017 replies to this topic

[S K Y F A L L]

This sounds indecisive. Now that it is a billion dollar a movie franchise they seem done with the 2 year schedule. To bad QOS wasn't all that bad. Every Bond film doesn't need to be 2 and a half hours. The best part about the CR scene in Venice is when Vesper dies cause you know at least the scene is almost over. 

[Dustin]

The difference between 3 years or 4 is not really all that much. Yes, in our day and age it feels like an eternity, but I doubt it will really change the fanbase. Bond is an established brand with plenty of market value, you can practically in any given year find somebody willing - in general terms - to finance a production. This is still a valuable asset.

That said it's of course a disappointment for any potential distribution partner to hear the grisly truth from the horse's mouth. Once you sign any agreement with MGM regarding the future you will of course want to see your capital start working; and working hard. Investors currently look at one major production every year for their franchises as a benchmark. It's clear now such visions will not be realised with Bond, which will no doubt kill off some illusions.

What a settlement for 3 to 4 years will mean in my opinion is that longer story arcs will probably become increasingly unlikely. Not that they ever were a staple of the Bond series before Craig's tenure, mind you. The early films used to be only loosely related in a couple of frames. Nobody left the theatre with shaking heads because they hadn't seen the previous film. I suppose we may see a return to the standalone film.

[tdalton]

The difference between 3 years or 4 is not really all that much.

 

It can, and IMO will, make a world of difference over the long haul.  

 

Those of us on this forum will probably not lose too much interest over the course of that extra year, but it does stand the chance to erode some of the more general fanbase, who, I'm often smugly reminded, is the target audience for the films.  

 

In the first 20 years of the franchise, they managed to get out 12 films (Dr. No through For Your Eyes Only).  If these plan were to take place, cut that number of films in more than half.  If everything went perfectly, under this plan, the best you could get in any given decade is three films (which would essentially happen every other decade).  In two decades, you'd get five films.  That would be the equivalent of Connery's entire first tenure in the role lasting two decades, instead of a fourth of that, which it actually took.

 

It wouldn't effect the current fandom, who are already posting here on the forums or are already hardcore collectors and whatever else falls under that umbrella, but it will start to erode the future fanbase.  Why spend so much time on something that happens so infrequently, and especially when the literary and videogame franchises, which could help fill the void between films, are so abysmal (or nonexistent, in the videogame franchise's case), that they're not really worth most peoples' time anymore?

[Dustin]

I can see your point there - though I doubt anybody ever smugly reminded you here of something you, me, almost everybody here must be aware of since at least 1995 - and I can not on the spot refute it altogether. But I would, simply from experience, suggest there will remain a strong incentive for potential fans by the mere number of past productions.

[Mr. Somerset]

Of course this could change when the studio situation gets resolved, and somebody steps up to the plate to play OO7, whether it be Daniel or somebody else. Barber is going by the recent films cycle and since TWINE it has been 3-4 years with the exception of QoS. Seems like 3 is the most feasible, even though only DAD an SP were on that cycle. When Craig signed on I'm pretty sure the intention was 1 film every 2 or so years until the 4th was finished- then play it by ear. Same with Pierce, and Timothy. I doubt the intention is ever for a 4 year gap. With CR it took all of '03 for them to try to come up with something else for Pierce. In '04 most of that was spent ditching PB an focusing on an entire re-boot. By 2005 we knew it would be CR and a new Bond would be cast, and the film would be out in Nov of 2006.

SF most certainly would have been a 2011 release had it not been for the MGM situation in 2010. in fact all throughout 2009 there was very little news regarding the next film. So far we have been told the 25th is already in the early stages of development.

I'm still rooting for a 2018 release date.

[DaveBond21]

I'm hoping for one more from Daniel and a 2018 release date.

[Professor Pi]

A November 2018 release date is the only vacant opening window at the moment.  Star Wars and Marvel have taken the other months and years, along with upcoming DCU and Avatar movies.  MI:6 will surely come out before Bond now.  I could wait three years if I could bank on that.  But most of the gaps have been due to financial considerations--MGM's Italian ownership in the 90s, bankruptcy in 2010, and now the distribution deal.  Though I'd like one more Craig Bond, especially that elusive YOLT novel adaptation, his four films have a nice self-contained story arc.

[Ytadel]

In two decades, you'd get five films.  That would be the equivalent of Connery's entire first tenure in the role lasting two decades, instead of a fourth of that, which it actually took.

 

It wouldn't effect the current fandom, who are already posting here on the forums or are already hardcore collectors and whatever else falls under that umbrella, but it will start to erode the future fanbase. 

 

To play devil's advocate: The Mission Impossible series has done exactly that, five films in two decades. It is considered a popular blockbuster franchise.

 

That said, I would like them to start making films more quickly.

[tdalton]

 

In two decades, you'd get five films.  That would be the equivalent of Connery's entire first tenure in the role lasting two decades, instead of a fourth of that, which it actually took.

 

It wouldn't effect the current fandom, who are already posting here on the forums or are already hardcore collectors and whatever else falls under that umbrella, but it will start to erode the future fanbase. 

 

To play devil's advocate: The Mission Impossible series has done exactly that, five films in two decades. It is considered a popular blockbuster franchise.

 

That said, I would like them to start making films more quickly.

 

 

Mission: Impossible's success is driven primarily by the star power of Tom Cruise.  If they took the franchise trappings away from those films, they would probably still do similar business because people are there to see Tom Cruise as opposed to Ethan Hunt, as a great number of people simply view each successive Mission: Impossible film as "the new Tom Cruise movie".  Cruise also manages to keep the interest in the franchise up because he keeps interest in himself high between films, whether it be by starring in other blockbuster films or by acting strange on Oprah.  

[Guy Haines]

I'm hoping for one more from Daniel and a 2018 release date.

In spite of my previous post on this thread, I too would like to see DC in a fifth Bond film, along with Christoph Waltz as Blofeld and perhaps Lea Seydoux back as Madeleine - she's interested, apparently, according to one published interview I came across recently. Autumn 2018 seems the most likely date for release. But will it happen? A lot can happen, one way or another, between now and then.

[sharpshooter]

I'm hoping for one more from Daniel and a 2018 release date.

My hope too. 

[Tiin007]

 

 

In the first 20 years of the franchise, they managed to get out 12 films (Dr. No through For Your Eyes Only).  If these plan were to take place, cut that number of films in more than half.  If everything went perfectly, under this plan, the best you could get in any given decade is three films (which would essentially happen every other decade).  In two decades, you'd get five films.  That would be the equivalent of Connery's entire first tenure in the role lasting two decades, instead of a fourth of that, which it actually took.

 

Even if you look at how things have been since LTK, the regularity of the series has dropped off considerably.

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

[Dustin]

We really cannot - and should not - compare the output from fifty, forty, thirty years with the one since the turn of the century. Circumstances have changed vastly, film business thrives in a totally different market today. While Eon itself stayed for the most part a tight ship, a family business. Churning out big productions north of $ 200 million on a regular basis is a job for an industry - an industry you have to have on the payroll and keep busy with constant projects. Eon likes to do their act in a more intimate manner and on their own terms.

The first three films were shot in rapid sequence mainly to establish Bond. They started out as B grade productions and only went big with the success of GOLDFINGER. Then of course the scale went up through the roof and quickly things became too big for a film per year. I think this is still basically the same effect we see at work here, there would be room and potential for a greater number of productions, only it would call for a different approach.

[tdalton]

I'm not saying that they should return to churning out one every year, or keep up the once every-other-year schedule as a rule.  But, you also can't have that much of a dramatic decrease in production, reaching a point where you're doing less than half of that kind of production over a 20 year period, and expect to cultivate a new generation of fans who will keep your business going at the same level of success some years down the line as it has become accustomed to recently.

 

And it would also be a different story if we were given any evidence that the longer wait between films would result in a better product, that might make it easier to swallow.  But, this is the creative team that took three years on Spectre, a film that felt much more rushed than Quantum of Solace, the film that everyone here likes to hold up as the bane of Bond's existence.  If they could guarantee that they get people on board to write the films that actually understand Bond and could churn out a solid product every three years, it might make this more of a reasonable idea, but if they're going to take 3-4 years for that kind of nonsense, then they're going to find themselves losing a portion of their intended audience pretty quickly.  The general public is pretty fickle when it comes to such things.

[coco1997]

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

[tdalton]

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

 

 

Most of those adaptations really only shared the title, character names, and sometimes a general setting in which the film takes place.  The writers, for many of those films, were still tasked with coming up with an entirely, or mostly, original story to place those characters in.  

 

Looking back at the earlier films, the first 16 films (Dr. No through Licence to Kill) featured 10 original, or mostly original storylines (some, like TLD, used a Fleming short story to springboard an entirely new story).  If you include the Brosnan films, then the first 20 films featured 14 films that had original or mostly original storylines, which meant the writers had to come up with a lot of material in order to get those films made.

 

There still is material from Fleming that they could mine in a similar fashion to create new stories.  You Only Live Twice remains unadapted, as does The Man with the Golden Gun.  The Spang Brothers and the Spangled Mob remain out there.  Heck, even SPECTRE could make a comeback in a new and inventive way at some point, given how badly they botched the organization in Spectre.  There's a lot of material, but the current writing and creative team at EON seems intent to spend years trying to develop complex and increasingly personal stories for Bond to tackle, which at times threatens to turn the Bond franchise into something more akin to the Batman franchise. 

[S K Y F A L L]

I'm getting the feeling they'll try to get a 5th Craig film in 2018 and then Bond 7 will begin in 2022 on the 60 th anniversary.

[Tiin007]

 

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

 

 

Most of those adaptations really only shared the title, character names, and sometimes a general setting in which the film takes place.  The writers, for many of those films, were still tasked with coming up with an entirely, or mostly, original story to place those characters in.  

 

Looking back at the earlier films, the first 16 films (Dr. No through Licence to Kill) featured 10 original, or mostly original storylines (some, like TLD, used a Fleming short story to springboard an entirely new story).  If you include the Brosnan films, then the first 20 films featured 14 films that had original or mostly original storylines, which meant the writers had to come up with a lot of material in order to get those films made.

 

There still is material from Fleming that they could mine in a similar fashion to create new stories.  You Only Live Twice remains unadapted, as does The Man with the Golden Gun.  The Spang Brothers and the Spangled Mob remain out there.  Heck, even SPECTRE could make a comeback in a new and inventive way at some point, given how badly they botched the organization in Spectre.  There's a lot of material, but the current writing and creative team at EON seems intent to spend years trying to develop complex and increasingly personal stories for Bond to tackle, which at times threatens to turn the Bond franchise into something more akin to the Batman franchise. 

 

 

I agree with tdalton's point here.

 

I also think that even with the difficult task of coming up with completely original storylines, EON can still do a better job by planning things out in advance (i.e. hire screenwriters for a three-picture deal, even if they are standalone films), rather than waiting until the dust settles on the current film to gauge audience reaction and then start from scratch.

 

In fact, as long as the writers can produce general story treatments (or first drafts of the screenplays) in advance, then EON can use the time after a film is released to tinker with the already-existing script of the next installment. That way, audience reaction can still have an impact on tone, dialogue, and certain other aspects without necessitating a brand new script being written. 

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

 

 

Most of those adaptations really only shared the title, character names, and sometimes a general setting in which the film takes place.  The writers, for many of those films, were still tasked with coming up with an entirely, or mostly, original story to place those characters in.  

 

Looking back at the earlier films, the first 16 films (Dr. No through Licence to Kill) featured 10 original, or mostly original storylines (some, like TLD, used a Fleming short story to springboard an entirely new story).  If you include the Brosnan films, then the first 20 films featured 14 films that had original or mostly original storylines, which meant the writers had to come up with a lot of material in order to get those films made.

 

There still is material from Fleming that they could mine in a similar fashion to create new stories.  You Only Live Twice remains unadapted, as does The Man with the Golden Gun.  The Spang Brothers and the Spangled Mob remain out there.  Heck, even SPECTRE could make a comeback in a new and inventive way at some point, given how badly they botched the organization in Spectre.  There's a lot of material, but the current writing and creative team at EON seems intent to spend years trying to develop complex and increasingly personal stories for Bond to tackle, which at times threatens to turn the Bond franchise into something more akin to the Batman franchise. 

 

 

I agree with tdalton's point here.

 

I also think that even with the difficult task of coming up with completely original storylines, EON can still do a better job by planning things out in advance (i.e. hire screenwriters for a three-picture deal, even if they are standalone films), rather than waiting until the dust settles on the current film to gauge audience reaction and then start from scratch.

 

In fact, as long as the writers can produce general story treatments (or first drafts of the screenplays) in advance, then EON can use the time after a film is released to tinker with the already-existing script of the next installment. That way, audience reaction can still have an impact on tone, dialogue, and certain other aspects without necessitating a brand new script being written. 

 

 

True, but Gregg Wilson said recently at the 007 auction that they like to keep things very topical and always ask themselves "what is the world afraid of right now?". So it seems they base the threat on very topical themes that become the main theme throughout the film.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Tiin007]

 

 

 

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

 

 

Most of those adaptations really only shared the title, character names, and sometimes a general setting in which the film takes place.  The writers, for many of those films, were still tasked with coming up with an entirely, or mostly, original story to place those characters in.  

 

Looking back at the earlier films, the first 16 films (Dr. No through Licence to Kill) featured 10 original, or mostly original storylines (some, like TLD, used a Fleming short story to springboard an entirely new story).  If you include the Brosnan films, then the first 20 films featured 14 films that had original or mostly original storylines, which meant the writers had to come up with a lot of material in order to get those films made.

 

There still is material from Fleming that they could mine in a similar fashion to create new stories.  You Only Live Twice remains unadapted, as does The Man with the Golden Gun.  The Spang Brothers and the Spangled Mob remain out there.  Heck, even SPECTRE could make a comeback in a new and inventive way at some point, given how badly they botched the organization in Spectre.  There's a lot of material, but the current writing and creative team at EON seems intent to spend years trying to develop complex and increasingly personal stories for Bond to tackle, which at times threatens to turn the Bond franchise into something more akin to the Batman franchise. 

 

 

I agree with tdalton's point here.

 

I also think that even with the difficult task of coming up with completely original storylines, EON can still do a better job by planning things out in advance (i.e. hire screenwriters for a three-picture deal, even if they are standalone films), rather than waiting until the dust settles on the current film to gauge audience reaction and then start from scratch.

 

In fact, as long as the writers can produce general story treatments (or first drafts of the screenplays) in advance, then EON can use the time after a film is released to tinker with the already-existing script of the next installment. That way, audience reaction can still have an impact on tone, dialogue, and certain other aspects without necessitating a brand new script being written. 

 

 

True, but Gregg Wilson said recently at the 007 auction that they like to keep things very topical and always ask themselves "what is the world afraid of right now?". So it seems they base the threat on very topical themes that become the main theme throughout the film.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

But if that calculation is a big factor in having such large gaps between films as they're struggling to get a script together, then it may be worth it to still plan ahead a little bit more. And if that means that the "threat" would have been more relevant two years ago than today, I could probably live with it. Especially as some of these so-called "threats" last for a number of years.

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

 

 

Most of those adaptations really only shared the title, character names, and sometimes a general setting in which the film takes place.  The writers, for many of those films, were still tasked with coming up with an entirely, or mostly, original story to place those characters in.  

 

Looking back at the earlier films, the first 16 films (Dr. No through Licence to Kill) featured 10 original, or mostly original storylines (some, like TLD, used a Fleming short story to springboard an entirely new story).  If you include the Brosnan films, then the first 20 films featured 14 films that had original or mostly original storylines, which meant the writers had to come up with a lot of material in order to get those films made.

 

There still is material from Fleming that they could mine in a similar fashion to create new stories.  You Only Live Twice remains unadapted, as does The Man with the Golden Gun.  The Spang Brothers and the Spangled Mob remain out there.  Heck, even SPECTRE could make a comeback in a new and inventive way at some point, given how badly they botched the organization in Spectre.  There's a lot of material, but the current writing and creative team at EON seems intent to spend years trying to develop complex and increasingly personal stories for Bond to tackle, which at times threatens to turn the Bond franchise into something more akin to the Batman franchise. 

 

 

I agree with tdalton's point here.

 

I also think that even with the difficult task of coming up with completely original storylines, EON can still do a better job by planning things out in advance (i.e. hire screenwriters for a three-picture deal, even if they are standalone films), rather than waiting until the dust settles on the current film to gauge audience reaction and then start from scratch.

 

In fact, as long as the writers can produce general story treatments (or first drafts of the screenplays) in advance, then EON can use the time after a film is released to tinker with the already-existing script of the next installment. That way, audience reaction can still have an impact on tone, dialogue, and certain other aspects without necessitating a brand new script being written. 

 

 

True, but Gregg Wilson said recently at the 007 auction that they like to keep things very topical and always ask themselves "what is the world afraid of right now?". So it seems they base the threat on very topical themes that become the main theme throughout the film.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

They've always had that approach.  

 

The concerns of the time are often present in the Bond films (solar power in The Man With the Golden Gun, the space race in Moonraker, Silicon Valley in A View to a Kill, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in The Living Daylights, the drug wars in Licence to Kill, the fall of the Soviet Union in GoldenEye, the increasing role of mass media in everyday life in Tomorrow Never Dies, the dwindling supply of oil and the need to control it in The World is Not Enough, North Korea in Die Another Day, terrorism in Casino Royale, shady politics and cornering supplies of natural resources in Quantum of Solace, and surveillance and government snooping in Skyfall and Spectre).

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

 

 

The EON series has been around for 54 years. In the first 27 years (half that time), 16 films were produced; whereas in the next 27 years, 8 films were produced. Thus, 2/3 of the Bond films were produced in the first half of the series' existence time-wise  

 

Had EON been as productive in its second 27 years as it was in its first, we'd be up to Bond 32 at the moment. 

 

For the first 27 years of the franchise, nearly all the films were at least loosely based on novels, so screenwriters weren't tasked with coming up with an entirely new story every time.

 

 

Most of those adaptations really only shared the title, character names, and sometimes a general setting in which the film takes place.  The writers, for many of those films, were still tasked with coming up with an entirely, or mostly, original story to place those characters in.  

 

Looking back at the earlier films, the first 16 films (Dr. No through Licence to Kill) featured 10 original, or mostly original storylines (some, like TLD, used a Fleming short story to springboard an entirely new story).  If you include the Brosnan films, then the first 20 films featured 14 films that had original or mostly original storylines, which meant the writers had to come up with a lot of material in order to get those films made.

 

There still is material from Fleming that they could mine in a similar fashion to create new stories.  You Only Live Twice remains unadapted, as does The Man with the Golden Gun.  The Spang Brothers and the Spangled Mob remain out there.  Heck, even SPECTRE could make a comeback in a new and inventive way at some point, given how badly they botched the organization in Spectre.  There's a lot of material, but the current writing and creative team at EON seems intent to spend years trying to develop complex and increasingly personal stories for Bond to tackle, which at times threatens to turn the Bond franchise into something more akin to the Batman franchise. 

 

 

I agree with tdalton's point here.

 

I also think that even with the difficult task of coming up with completely original storylines, EON can still do a better job by planning things out in advance (i.e. hire screenwriters for a three-picture deal, even if they are standalone films), rather than waiting until the dust settles on the current film to gauge audience reaction and then start from scratch.

 

In fact, as long as the writers can produce general story treatments (or first drafts of the screenplays) in advance, then EON can use the time after a film is released to tinker with the already-existing script of the next installment. That way, audience reaction can still have an impact on tone, dialogue, and certain other aspects without necessitating a brand new script being written. 

 

 

True, but Gregg Wilson said recently at the 007 auction that they like to keep things very topical and always ask themselves "what is the world afraid of right now?". So it seems they base the threat on very topical themes that become the main theme throughout the film.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

But if that calculation is a big factor in having such large gaps between films as they're struggling to get a script together, then it may be worth it to still plan ahead a little bit more. And if that means that the "threat" would have been more relevant two years ago than today, I could probably live with it. Especially as some of these so-called "threats" last for a number of years.

 

 

Fair point.

 

I do think that one of the reasons the 1960's movies were so successful was because they had plenty of Fleming material to work with and could plan ahead, and change direction slightly as trends changed, so yes I would be all for them planning ahead, especially if it meant a new 007 flick every 2 years.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess the albatross around EON´s neck remains MGM with its constant problems and lackluster slates.

 

Since MGM knows Bond is its bread and butter (and the only reason they are still in a position to function and maneuver) they cling to it without really caring about the content, just the numbers and the potential marketability.

 

Makes one almost wish for Bond to tank at the box office a few times, forcing MGM to sell off even Bond - and then have a better studio guide it into the future.

[Double-Oh Agent]

MGM--the gift/curse that keeps on sucking. About every 5-10 years they seem to need a new transfusion of cash to survive. Talk about an albatross around EON's/James Bond's neck. They hover over the Bond franchise like a specter continually haunting EON and 007, keeping the producers from fully concentrating on their franchise and staying worry-free. At this point, I'd rather MGM just go away. Die already. I was actually kind of hoping for that back in 2010 but Sony helped save them.

 

I do not at all like the 4 year gap. That is too long between films. 2-3 years between films is the correct spacing. That is still long enough to get a quality product out without having a large break between films.

[tdalton]

Maybe EON should just decide to stop making Bond films for a while.  They could, essentially, financially ruin MGM on their own by refusing to make anymore films until MGM agrees to let them go elsewhere or MGM can no longer continue to function as a studio.  

 

One extended break of about 8-10 years could be long enough to sink MGM (probably would take less) and then would do the bonus work of resetting the entire slate for the Bond franchise moving forward, allowing them to do just about anything that they want with the franchise.  It would also set up that next Bond film as the mother of all event films.

 

Not that this is the preferred scenario, but it could be a solid nuclear option for EON that could really set the franchise up for a solid foundation in the future.

[Dustin]

I don't think it's that easily solved, tdalton. These joint ventures tend to have a specific legal frame set that prevents one partner from just sitting out the partnership. I believe within a certain timeframe there has to be a project if one partner shows up with the money and/or the other partner shows up with a script. In MGM's case they would probably rather put some cash on the table than lose their only remaining raison d'être.

Though it's anybody's guess what period that would be, could be everything from five years upwards...

[tdalton]

Pretty much any contract can be gotten out of if one of the parties is desperate enough to get out of it.  It might take some short term financial pain in order to accomplish it, whether that be fines or penalties for not showing up to make a picture.  Unless there's a clause that gives MGM total ownership of the franchise should EON breach the contract, I'd at least threaten MGM with just sitting on the franchise for a while to see if the screws can be twisted on them enough to either sever ties or to work out a much more palatable deal with another studio, because the MGM/Sony deal was something of a joke.  

[Dustin]

Bad idea. This is not really feasible behaviour as simple experience ought to teach us. MGM has been dead and buried nearly as many times as Dracula - and they are still around and burning money. You can never tell which player might decide to save them from the end this time. And then you'd have a seriously annoyed partner whose next step will likely be making your life a big deal less happy. Rule of thumb: never burn bridges you might need in the future.

Seriously, the only decent behaviour in the face of this situation is to smile and wait, no alternative.

[tdalton]

[edit - nevermind]

[New Digs]

 I miss the confidence of the Cubby era.

 

So do I. But then I think Cubby had more of the field to himself than the current producers do.