Do Michael Wilson and Barbara care anymore?
John from Cork
Posts: 111MI6 Agent
I remember seeing Michael Wilson on a breakfast TV type promo for Bond 25 a couple of years ago and he seemed to be rather board and going through the motions, a bit like Sean Connery in YOLT and DAF.
Comments
He has had major health issues in the last few years, which may account for it. For all we know, he may have been planning to retire after NTTD and is only still at work because of the delays.
While I understand the frustration lots of Bond fans are feeling, I don't think trying to project oneself into the minds of Michael and Barbara is a healthy endeavor. We can't possibly know what they're thinking about the franchise or anything else, and certainly not on the basis of old interviews. They made some poor decisions that delayed the production of Bond 25 — and caused it to fall victim to frustrating delays associated with the pandemic — but the fact remains that NTTD is done, none of us has seen it, and for we all know, it is wonderful and plays as a passion project. Nor we do have a clue what Eon has done behind the scenes to prepare for the future of the franchise. The deal with Amazon grants Michael and Barbara unheard of creative control. Certainly if they didn't care or had wanted to cash out, the time to have moved on was during the recent negotiations.
Well some of us know full well how they are thinking. Or one at least, as the other has more important things to be doing due to waning health and cognitive issues. As for the other, Bond is their cash cow to fund their real passion in theatre and that is what their siblings are really into. But now it’s a bigger cash cow because Amazon has stumped up so much money for a non controlling share amount. Imagine if they wanted to make even more. They’d sell the controlling few percent and do what they want to do with that vast amount, and still reap the humongous benefits of any future royalties. Or full on sell out. Which is the smart move. That’d be insane money. They could buy a country. Their siblings don’t care. So what’s to lose at their age. If anyone thinks that they have vested interest in Bond going forward based on Cubbys legacy. Await the shock. It’s a dying franchise over the next two decades. Nothing lasts forever. And this wave has been going on for sooooo long. In this climate. Bond as we know him will not last long past NTTD. Or for that matter past SPECTRE.
No offense, but when you make these declarations you need to realize that most AJB members have no clue who you are or how you know these things. I’ve been on this board for years and seen you be right about many things, so maybe you have a direct line to the Broccolis. If so, you paint a grim picture.
It’s still speculation on what exactly BB will do in the near future. But based on some solid insight from friends and contacts that all seem to strongly point in the direction that selling is something of a smart, if not inevitable move. Especially given that the only thing really giving her a renewed interest in the franchise was Craig’s involvement, and he’s gone now
It’s not necessarily grim if this pans out. But the way people are making and writing films at the moment is ruining all the top franchises and taking them in weird directions that are far from the original premise or even retconning them entirely. The numbers involved in Amazons buyout of MGM has changed everything quite dramatically. Not to mention COVID.
BB mat be Craig's biggest fan, but are there any real sources to back to the claim that he's the only thing giving her renewed interest in the Bond franchise?
Plenty. Everyone I know who deals with E/DJ say the same. Which is why I replied to the thread. And that’s been the same since before SKYFALL. Theatre is her passion now. Big time. And her daughter is the same. She has no interest in Bond at all apparently.
Everyone is awaiting to see how NTTD performs and is received. A certain amount of apathy exists for many over it.
Let's hope the people you know are wrong this time 🤞
Yup 😁.
that's too bad. whenever I see interviews with Barbara she talks a good line, always repeating the story of how she was a toddler on the beach the day they filmed Ursula Andress's big entrance scene. I always think how can anybody question her BondFan credentials when she experienced that as a wee lass?
and the hype surrounding the amazon takeover all stressed the unusual creative control EON would keep. Why bargain for that if they're not going to use it?
Michael would be nearly 80, I'm not surprised we don't hear more from him. We can thank him specifically for cowriting that string of 80s Bond films when they went back to the Fleming source material and took a more serious coldwar tone. He doesn't owe us anything more now, and I wish him a comfortable and well earned retirement if that's what he wants.
but I thought there were Broccoli grandchildren who were being groomed to take over he family business?
Yes, I was definitely under the impression that Gregg Wilson was in that category.
Oh that's sad to hear, hope he's doing okay.
As ASP points out, it wouldn’t have to be all bad with an Amazon-controlled Bond. EON is stale. Other than CR (which is down to un-used source material, not anything coming from the screenwriters), they haven’t had an original idea in decades. They dabble, but always go back to Purvis and Wade. New perspectives on story and character should be welcome. They also don’t need the money anymore from product placement. Bond could wear a Rolex. Drive a Bentley. Dress in proper English bespoke tailoring. I’m sure there’s many qualified creatives in Hollywood who would not destroy Bond in the ways that we all fear, but who demand too much creative license to be palatable to EON.
That’s the glass-half-full take. We all know the worst-case, which I fear is also the more likely scenario, so I won’t bother to repeat it.
That they stop making them? I'm not sure how likely that is, Bond is presumably one of the main reasons for buying MGM as they don't have a huge amount of other brands and their back catalogue has been sold off previously I believe.
I might be wrong but I also don't think they get money as such from product placement; it's more that they get the products featured for free and the brands involved agree to promote the film, and promotion is expensive so they'll take as much of that as they can get. If money were really no object they wouldn't shoot most of these films in England! 😊 But like anything, there's a budget.
I also don't think it's fair to say they haven't had an original idea in decades. You may not find Skyfall to your personal taste, but it was a massive hit with audiences and critics alike and clearly did something right.
My greatest fear is that they ruin Bond by making it unrecognizable. I would much prefer they stop making the films if that’s the road they choose to traverse. So that’s what I was referring to as the pessimistic outcome.
As for product placement, it’s not just free use of products. EON getS paid in one way or another. Do you think they’d choose Omega over Rolex if the only issue was having to buy a couple submariners?
And I enjoyed Skyfall very much, especially when it first came out. It’s a good Bond film. But it’s hardly groundbreaking stuff. Just because something is successful, even critically successful, doesn’t make it a creative milestone. It’s two different things.
I don't think it's likely to become unrecognisable. There's so much iconography and continuity in the series that it will always be clear it's a Bond film, but it's also a series which is pretty elastic and has taken quite a variety of approaches. He went to space! 😁 I'm not sure what would make it unrecognisable beyond James Bond not being in them any more or giving him actual superpowers. Even if it became an overly-stylised action cartoon like John Wick I think it would still sit inside of the Bond series.
Re: product placement, I very much said it wasn't just free products. The brands agree to promote each others' products: the watches appear in the film, getting them seen and bringing a very valuable brand association in cinemagoers/shoppers' minds, and then Omega also promote the movie through their print, cinema, TV ads and stores. Promotion is a huge expense, and that's primarily why they do it. They presumably choose Omega over Rolex because Omega are interested, presented the better deal, suited the films, and I guess they have an ongoing contract. I'm not sure any money changes hands at all, but both sides benefit from the cross-promotion of products and association with each other. Eon aren't after the money (as you say, their issue isn't not having the cash to buy a couple of submariners): they want to have their film promoted effectively for free, and in channels which may not be easily available to them.
Is Skyfall wasn't a creative milestone I'd be curious which Bond films are! 🤣 Especially if anything with Fleming source material doesn't count.
Well Eon have specifically said that in light of the Amazon takeover they are committed to making Bond films for theatrical release, so it's not becoming a TV show any time soon.
With regards to the budgets coming down you may well be right. Mission Impossible Fallout cost a lot less than Spectre did but made close to as much at the box office - can Bond keep justifying those big budgets?
They get millions from product placement. Omega pays many millions alone to get their watches on screen or to be ad associated with the Bond brand. As do Coke, Bollinger, Globetrotter, Belvedere, Land Rover, Jaguar, DuPont, The Telegraph etc etc. The numbers are insane. But Omega especially. That’s why you won’t see Rolex on Bonds wrist again. They don’t do movie product placement.
I would need to see some evidence to believe they pay millions into Eon's bank account for the chance to advertise other people's products. Brand association is a strong driver, as I mentioned, but the movie company wants their movie promoted as wide as possible, which is why Heineken don't have James Bond on their cans all year round. It's a two-way deal: the brands offer something that the movie company want.
I'm sure they agree to spend lots of money, but I doubt the money goes into Eon's pockets: the money goes on promoting the film in their advertising. In return they get the association with 007 as well as exposure in the movie itself. In the case of some brands like Aston Martin the film gets the cars themselves built for the movie, which saves them a lot of cash. I'd be surprised if they spent much, if anything at all, on having those DB5 replicas built for this film.
What is quite interesting is that only Heineken get access to Daniel Craig in terms of making new content. I imagine he has some of contract where he does only one bit of advertising each time as I guess he doesn't want to be salesman (used to be Sony products on his first couple of films). He does Omega too of course but I think that's a direct thing between him an Omega and not via the film. The phone brand get Nomi, DHL only get the car! 😊
Sure a load goes into each film. But Eon are a profit making company so they will take profit from these marketing deals. They are as important to a film company as the actual box office takings. They make up a large proportion of any studios profits per film. Omega and Aston Martin particularly pay many millions for being associated with Bond. It has actually saved both companies at one time or another. In Astons case twice.
The reason Heineken don’t have Bond on their cans year round is due to the licensing period they agreed on, which is usually short for products like that. Again they have to pay extra to feature any logo or association with the Bond brand. Same with Coke and other products that are short term leasing. N Peal have a different situation where they have longer licensing leases. Some brands find this too expensive such as Barbour, so they don’t do it. I’m sure they’d have had Bond advertising all over the place with the Commander jacket if they didn’t have to pay a big wad of cash for the privilege.
The profit comes from the free marketing spend these brands are willing to exchange and commit to. Promoting a film is an enormous part of a movie budget: they will do a deal to get the promotion that e.g. Heineken are willing to spend- that's massively beneficial to the movie.
The amount that Aston would have spent on designing and building the DB10s and supplying them to the film is the many millions they pay for the association. And the film benefits hugely because they save a shedload of production cash, plus they get brand association too: they want 007 associated with Aston Martin as much as Aston Martin wants to be associated with 007. It's a mutually beneficial deal.
Sometimes there may be weighting to those deals, but to pay over the odds in one direction for mutually beneficial deals would be bad business.
Notice that the first time NTTD was being released Heineken had 007 cans everywhere. The second time, no 007 cans. All in all there's a large chance they had fulfilled their commitment to the movie and spent what they agreed with Eon to spend.
If you want to license 007 out to help sell your product and Eon haven't got a film out (doesn't happen very often but I can think of stuff like a Pepsi ad from years ago) then sure, then the brand will be paying Danjaq millions because that's a straight licensing deal.
A little bit off topic but I don't understand why they went to all the trouble of buying back the rights to Spectre and Blofeld only to make a complete dogs dinner out of the character Blofeld, Bonds foster brother may as well have been called Hugo Drax or Max Zorin as he had more in common with them then the original Blofeld.
At least partially it was to prevent someone else using those rights, as McClory had done back in the 80s.
Exactly, yes: they agree to spend on marketing the film. See my link regarding Heineken above, which actually puts their spend on marketing their partnership on Skyfall at being higher and has direct quotes from their head of sponsorship, so is likely to be more accurate than the Daily Mail(!).
I have to disagree when you say the producers haven't had an original idea in decades. CR offers new ideas that weren't from Fleming. A black and white PTS with only drama and no standout action. No Q or Moneypenny. Bond gets formed into the Bond we know, including the tux and the music.
At the end of QoS Bond CHOSES not to have an affair with the main Bond girl. In SF the big battle mest the end isn't the good guys storming the villan's lair, but the villans storming Bond's "lair". Not to mention Q is killed and the villan "wins".
In SP a villan from two earlier movies briefly becomes an ally. MI6 HQ is the location of the big battle at the end.
I would argue the Craig era had more original ideas than what we saw in the 70's and 80's.
Not “marketing the film” but also marketing, which means paying for product placement. If you think Heineken pay $45million on marketing a Bond film alone, never become a financial advisor please.
They don’t just pay for the marketing. They pay for the license. That’s how licensing works.
If you think that’s nuts. What Omega pay per film since their original 3 film contract ended would blow your mind. It was insane for CR which is when I was with Rolex, but Emm was Omega marketing until just after QoS and it was nuts. I think they struck another 3 picture deal after that which is why we get stand alone tie ins off them now. So I hate to think. Rolex would never pay that to be in a film, they like to sponsor human and technical achievement.
Anyway, this has drifted way off topic now so I’ll leave it at that and investigate that for another time. Emm still has contacts with Omega.
I can totally see how that idea developed. It even has its basis in Fleming: he wrote a story where Bond goes after the killer of his childhood mentor Hannes Oberhauser. If I were writing a Bond story and took that as the basis I can well imagine developing that by thinking 'why not make that killer also one of the iconic Bond villains?'. And then it kind of snowballs from there- I think they might even have made us buy into it in a better film.