1017 replies to this topic

[DavidJones]

I think Bond is done. Best case, we have a film every four years. Worst, with all this, one in ten years' time. Meanwhile, Fast and Furious have the stunts, Kngsman have the spies and Mission Impossible have both. Thank goodness for DVDs...

[SecretAgentFan]

You´re too pessimistic.

[Dustin]

I think the situation may not be looking very bright. But it's fairly sure it will change one way or another in the not-too-distant future. One film in ten years time strikes me as most unlikely. It's much more probable in my opinion to expect a further business-as-usual schedule of about three years, but most likely with a different player on the studio side.

[Tiin007]

I think the worst case scenario is that Bond 25 comes out in 2019/2020 (with Craig, I hope!), and then Bond 26 features a new Bond after another long gap (say, 2024 or 2025). 

 

But once Bond #7 is introduced, I'd like to think that the series will return to a more regular release schedule (i.e. hopefully every other year, but no gaps larger than three years-- like the Brosnan era). 

[DavidJones]

You´re too pessimistic.

You're probably right.

[RMc2]

I think the worst case scenario is that Bond 25 comes out in 2019/2020 (with Craig, I hope!), and then Bond 26 features a new Bond after another long gap (say, 2024 or 2025). 

 

But once Bond #7 is introduced, I'd like to think that the series will return to a more regular release schedule (i.e. hopefully every other year, but no gaps larger than three years-- like the Brosnan era). 

 

I do hope you're right, about everything!

 

The one thing that is certain is that Bond isn't going away. I can't imagine any franchise ending on the commercial success that Craig's run has enjoyed. And we all know the series has been 'dead' before.

[Tiin007]

Yeah, Bond will certainly return at some point.

 

I also think EON are very aware of the irregular nature of the Craig era, and will likely want to do whatever possible to ensure it doesn't continue into the next era. I'd like to hope that this means planning Bond films in advance (i.e. not only thinking about the next one, but mapping out 2-3 films ahead). 

[Dustin]

Eon, to everybody's astonishment, doesn't follow the pattern of the typical franchise in blowing their property to the limit of the market until demand decreases. They have a very long and varied experience with all kinds of different market situations. It's reasonable to expect they will stick to their guns and keep Bond in business at a slightly lower rate than other brands in the genre.

Apparently they are in a position to do so, lest the various attempts by MGM and/or Sony to push them into a tighter schedule would have met with success. Evidently they didn't and it's quite possible this may have been for the best. Imagine MGM running into an impasse like this one with a production under way. That would be something that could do a lot more damage to the brand than we might imagine...

Fact is, the situation will change again. And after that we'll likely see how things will develop from there. Bond isn't going to quit.

[Tiin007]

Eon, to everybody's astonishment, doesn't follow the pattern of the typical franchise in blowing their property to the limit of the market until demand decreases. They have a very long and varied experience with all kinds of different market situations. It's reasonable to expect they will stick to their guns and keep Bond in business at a slightly lower rate than other brands in the genre.

 

Right, but I'd argue that a new Bond film every other year is "at a slightly lower rate than other brands in the genre." When one looks at recent franchises like Marvel, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and Star Wars (under Disney), entries in these series are / were being released every year. Now I understand that these are more sci-fi / fantasy in nature, and some of them could lose audiences' interest in a way that Bond films likely won't, but the Bond series still pales in comparison when it comes to release schedules. 

 

Also, I don't fully follow the connection between EON having "a very long and varied experience with all kinds of different market situations" and the notion that this would result in a slower output than other franchises. How does one logically follow from the other? 

 

In fact, given EON's tendency over the past few decades to latch on to whatever is trendy in the film business, I'd argue that a more regular release schedule (albeit temporarily) is overdue. 

[Dustin]

We mustn't forget that Eon themselves used to kick off an avalanche of genre films with four films in as many years, after which their entire competition was crowding in the spy genre. They slowed their own product in order to keep it from burning out. The every other year schedule was a direct result of their own success, otherwise they might have produced one per year until 1972 - and then stopped altogether. After all, they had not just to battle Matt Helm or Kid Brother or OSS117 and a hundred others but also the telly which was starting to have an effect on the business. Evidently they must have done something right back then.

Well, the connection between experience and making itself scarce follows from the fact that Bond isn't other franchises. They play in their own league and make their own rules. Of course from a simply economic point-of-view Eon's game pales in comparison. But what if they just don't compare themselves? Because I think this is what we see with 007 time and again.

Yes, they soak up the stuff of the cultural pulse of times, no doubt about it. But they don't, for example, feel the need to cave in to the demands of the controllers and marketing to cover as many screens as possible with their product. Of course, as you rightfully point out, one could branch out with other characters or film back-to-back (we might have gotten both), only that's just not the Eon-way of business. This might change at any given point in the future, why not? But for the time being I doubt it will do so.

From experience we can perhaps expect a relatively quick follow up film for a new actor in the role, just to establish the face. Maybe if that second film for the new guy is a success in the SKYFALL-league they will want to push on, could be. But so much depends on who is going to be Bond, who directs, which studio is willing to pick up the tap ...

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess the main difference between Bond films and other franchises is obvious: they are no sequel fodder and there is no universe building.  

 

Granted, SPECTRE behaved as if the whole Craig era were indeed one big story in four installments - but everybody including EON knows that this was just a lame attempt at trying to appear as if they did not hectically scramble around to produce one more film after CASINO ROYALE.

 

Personally, I don´t believe that Bond and narrative continuity works out as long as there is no actor/studio/director-combination that wants to sustain many consecutive films in a very short amount of time, annually at least.

 

The way Bond films have been turned into rarer events it is much better to tell stand-alone stories, at best holding on to the Mi6-crew.  That way the Bond actor can be exchanged whenever he does not want to go on.

 

 

Right now, after finally getting the McClory mess in order, EON has the next albatross around their neck to face: MGM.  As long as those guys don´t get their things in order, EON will not be able to continue - even if they and/or Daniel Craig wanted to.

 

But the good news is: MGM cannot hold out forever.  In fact, they probably cannot wait for more than another year or so - because they have nothing to show, no films that can sustain them, and the shareholders will get antsy sooner rather than later.

[Dustin]

Provided the reports about the China connection are true - and they seem to be solid enough - it would follow MGM's shareholders are by now more than a little antsy. From their point of view they've heard numerous variations on the Make-MGM-big-again theme, each with a slightly different timeline and a slightly altered chorus - but all performed by the Barber Big Band. And that act may have overstayed its welcome with the audience.

Many of the promised miracles failed to materialise and the vision for MGM's future as a 'true' studio would have called for an entirely different approach with regards to funds, personnel and creative talent. As a shareholder you can't help but wonder how this ship was supposed to sail the seas - when all its output was barely fit to make it out of the harbour every few years.

Conclusion: a change is overdue and trying to sell out to a Chinese investor suggests the top brass at MGM already arrived at this insight some time ago.

[DavidJones]

It would be great if Eon bought out MGM's stake in Bond. But MGM would have to be persuaded to sell.

[Dustin]

We're almost certainly talking corporate-league sums with MGM's share of 007. By now there is not much more left. MGM's shareholders are now largely made up of hedge funds and they just have to make a decent profit on any sale or split up of their investment. I doubt Eon can arrange a deal on their own off the cuff. When MGM's share of Bond is up for grabs it will most likely be a big player to make a move.

[SecretAgentFan]

Provided the reports about the China connection are true - and they seem to be solid enough - it would follow MGM's shareholders are by now more than a little antsy. From their point of view they've heard numerous variations on the Make-MGM-big-again theme, each with a slightly different timeline and a slightly altered chorus - but all performed by the Barber Big Band. And that act may have overstayed its welcome with the audience.

Many of the promised miracles failed to materialise and the vision for MGM's future as a 'true' studio would have called for an entirely different approach with regards to funds, personnel and creative talent. As a shareholder you can't help but wonder how this ship was supposed to sail the seas - when all its output was barely fit to make it out of the harbour every few years.

Conclusion: a change is overdue and trying to sell out to a Chinese investor suggests the top brass at MGM already arrived at this insight some time ago.

 

   

[Tiin007]

Does this mean no mention of Bond 25 at Gary Barber's conference call with investors? 

 

http://deadline.com/...als-1202039321/

[Napoleon Solo]

I listened to a recording of the call on MGM's website. No mention of Bond 25.

Sixth season of Teen Wolf was mentioned.

 

New version of Tomb Raider mentioned.

 

New version of Death Wish mentioned.

 

New version of Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels mentioned.

24 minutes of my life I won't be able to get back.

Oh, and the investors had *no* questions for Barber.

[Tiin007]

I'm wondering what to make of this.

 

On the one hand, Bond 25's omission from the call would seem to indicate that its release is a far way off.

 

On the other hand, had Barber simply repeated what he's said in the past ("3-4 year cycle," or "in a few years"), I'd have gotten the impression that little to no progress has actually been made since his last update. Maybe silence on the matter is better as it doesn't totally discount a 2018 / 2019 release.

 

What does everyone else think?

[Dustin]

Since both topics were avoided in public the logical conclusion is they have been discussed in advance privately.

Apart from that there is not a lot one can say with any degree of accuracy. The talks with the Chinese could have been instigated by either side, the MGM rooster of shareholders will have been aware...and that's about it.

Sometimes such deals fail because of arrangements for the top brass leaving ship, sometimes they fail because of unbridgeable views regarding the value of such a company. If MGM was the one to knock on the door we can reasonably expect they knocked on more than just one door. But this is truly already the extent of information we can gather from this.

The omission of BOND 25 signifies just that: nothing to report.

[SecretAgentFan]

And the projects they did mention... wow, how lackluster those flops of tomorrow already sound.

 

MGM needs Bond fast.  Otherwise - how can they keep afloat?

[Dustin]

Indeed, quite disappointing what they have lined up there, nothing that would tempt me to go see it at the theatre. Remains to be seen whether they will fare better with younger audiences.

[SecretAgentFan]

http://www.hollywood...e-viacom-985020

 

Basically, MGM tries to make more money with TV - by acquiring more outlets, which means they have to go in debt even more upfront - which could end up collapsing the studio for good.  Or keep it scraping by, holding on to the Bond franchise for many more years...

[Gobi-1]

I can't help but wonder if EON is simply waiting for MGM to die. Every Bond film gives MGM just enough momentum to stagger on for another year or two. Maybe by holding off on a new film they are simply accelerating the process of MGM's demise.

[Simon]

It's an idea, but perversely, while MGM own 50% of Bond, they won't die AS a result of a Bond film not being produced. 

 

If their dying was imminent and IF they ever sold their 50% stake, thereafter they could fall over.  But a sale would assure their further staggering for a period, I would submit.

 

Clearly the decent thing to do at this stage would be to sell their stake.  Equally clearly, that won't happen.

[DavidJones]

This is an interesting idea. Do you think Eon want to wait until MGM are dying before offering to buy their stake? It would be worth it for EON to wait two or three more years if it meant they could own Bond completely.

[Dustin]

That's probably not going to happen so soon. MGM would likely put their half of the franchise into a subsidiary and sell off slices of that; I doubt EON could prevent them. This way MGM could keep the ship just so much above the waterline to keep the fifth floor dry...

[Simon]

It is a bloody hopeless situation all round.

 

I don't even know why MGM has to have a distribution partner per se because I am sure Eon could fund the lot themselves, no?  Or maybe that has been tried because they too, like Sony, wouldn't get such a great deal.

 

Please excuse the random thought.

[SecretAgentFan]

Number one rule in show business: never spend your own money.  Let others take care of that for you.

[Toxteth_OGrady]

5 studios interested in the distribution rights...

 

https://mobile.nytim...ebook.com/?_rdr

[Dustin]

I've heard of Annapurna but how solid their bid can be as a relative newcomer is everybody's guess. I wonder if it's actually MGM who are offering just a one-off deal? Strikes me studios would only sign a long-term agreement if they got more beef in return. After all anything beyond BOND 25 would likely come with recasting; no studio would go blind into this.

Otherwise a fine find, thanks.