Anyone else think Wilson and Broccoli won't be involved with 26?

John from CorkJohn from Cork Posts: 84MI6 Agent
edited January 29 in Bond 26

I think that bond news will go quiet for a couple of years (apart from tabloid made up stuff) and news will come in about 2024 that Wilson and Broccoli have sold their share of the business. I think it was the reason they decided to kill off Bond, despite with they say publicly.

«13

Comments

  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 19,978MI6 Agent

    I don't think it was their idea to kill Bond, that was Craig. They wouldn't let Craig take the responsibility if it was their idea. Neither do I think they needed to kill off Bond to leave the franchise. Quite the oposite, I think they would make sure the franchise and Bond was very much alive before pulling out of the series. That said, l wouldn't be surprised if Wilson leaves because of his age.

  • HowardBHowardB USAPosts: 2,679MI6 Agent

    Despite forays into live theater and some smaller films, James Bond is the family business for EON. I agree things do point to Michael Wilson retiring but still being involved to some extent in an advisory role. When it comes to Barbara Broccoli, she is only 61 and certainly not particularly old by film producer standards. IMO, I don't think it is all about the money for Broccoli, I am sure she is incredibly wealthy and could enhance her generational wealth greatly with the windfall that would come from selling off Bond. I think EON hangs onto Bond for the foreseeable future because it's the Broccoli family legacy and it is Bond that makes Barbara Broccoli a big power player in Hollywood.

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent
    edited January 29

    I'm fairly convinced that they will sell. Remember, it wasn't Barbara who bought the rights in the first place.

    She enjoys making films, though has shown considerable interest in branching out. None of her non-Bond films, however, have been financially successful and The Rhythm Section, in particular, was humiliating.

    I think she will want to sell the rights in order to secure financing for her future projects. Otherwise, another run of flops may make funds hard to find.

    Streaming has opened up a whole new market for the art-house fare she prefers, so she might well want to enter that arena.

    Also, the Craig era was her special project. Finding another actor and perhaps even tone for more Bond movies may feel like going back to square one. I think she is looking at the last five films and think, "I've done what I tried to do."

    This is why selling wouldn't be framed as a failure or an act of greed, but as an experienced producer who has decided to concentrate on pursuing a wide variety of projects that interest her. She's 61 now (thanks Wikipedia), so has another fifteen or sixteen years of career left.

    Just speculating.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    actually if Barbara wants to make unprofitable art films she should continue making blockbuster BondFilms, to pay for her pet projects. Thats normal in the movie world, actors and directors make silly mainstream action movies that'll pay them vast amounts of wealth so they can afford to work on the arty stuff they're really interested in.

  • HalfMonk HalfHitmanHalfMonk HalfHitman USAPosts: 2,161MI6 Agent

    Michael has at this point been a primary player on the Bond films longer than Cubby even was. He's earned a retirement.

    It does seem like his son Gregg is being groomed the way Barbara was to help run the franchise. And killing off Craig will, I suspect, turn out to be a canny choice in terms of giving the franchise another decade-plus of longevity. Catering to 50-year-olds won't keep the franchise alive. They need to get younger audiences invested and a clean break might work in its favor that way.

    I am curious: What's the Venn diagram of folks who didn't like this last movie, and folks thinking Eon is going to sell?

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent
    edited January 29

    I liked No Time to Die. Not a favourite, but I'd say better than all of Craig's films apart from his first.

    The reason I don't love it is nothing to do with Bond's death. That didn't bother me in the slightest. (That was just Craig posturing and as such took me out of the film - something I shrugged off).

    My main concern was that Safin's motivation was so very vague.

    I also thought the hand-over from Blofeld to Safin was clumsy, and he seemed to know too much about Spectre's operations. They should've made him a Spectre agent, avenging his family from within, before becoming so evil himself that he decides to exploit Blofeld's imprisonment by staging a hostile takeover. He would become the leader of the organization he used to despise.

    In the real world, I reckon Barbara would be able to finance her art films with the - at a guess - two and a half billion dollars she would get by selling the rights to Amazon. In that scenario, I suspect she would keep Eon itself. I dare say that a somewhat small production company which focuses on art films with that kind of money would be a very tempting proposition.

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,758MI6 Agent
    edited January 29

    Also, the Craig era was her special project. Finding another actor and perhaps even tone for more Bond movies may feel like going back to square one. I think she is looking at the last five films and think, "I've done what I tried to do."

    I like to think she will stay on, but I must admit I couldn't blame her if that was her thinking. It must be a pretty exhausting thought at this point to think that they've got to try and overhaul this series once again. Mr Wilson is 80 now, I'm sure has more money than most of us could dream of, I doubt any of us could blame him if he fancied stepping back.

    I have noticed that they still haven't incorporated a limited company for the next film, something they usually do before the previous film has even opened. It may well have something to do with the MGM sale, but maybe also they really are just wanting to have a break. It's been a good 18 years they've been going down this path.

  • HowardBHowardB USAPosts: 2,679MI6 Agent

    I don't think the sale of MGM to Amazon has actually officially happened yet. I think it is still being reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission.

    So it would make sense that they have not yet incorporated a limited company for the next film.

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,758MI6 Agent

    Yes exactly, as I say: it may have something to do with the sale. I guess you can’t start work, paying people and billing time, unless you know where the money is coming from.

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent

    Judging by the long gaps between films, it seems to me that Barbara doesn't feel particularly energized about Bond. I may be wrong, but maybe Craig's reluctance suited her to an extent. It gave her more time to think about her other films.

  • HalfMonk HalfHitmanHalfMonk HalfHitman USAPosts: 2,161MI6 Agent

    The gaps keep the films as "events" in an increasingly crowded marketplace; it's a cannier move than fans give Eon credit for. Marvel can hop from Black Panther to Black Widow to Shang Chi to the Eternals and back around the houses, and Star Wars can sustain four or five TV series simultaneously, but Eon has one Bond. Churning out one every other year risks turning them into programmers (which the series has been in danger of becoming in the 70s, 80s, and to a lesser degree in the 90s).

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent
    edited January 30

    I obviously respect your opinion, but I don't personally believe that. I think the series is in deep trouble if it continues to deliver only two films a decade. The people who see these films nowadays skew towards an older demographic: middle-aged and senior citizens. Those who grew up watching them in the '60s and '70s. Fewer young people are interested. I keep hearing how they think of Bond as "those movies my Dad likes." That doesn't bode well for the future.

    This sounds ludicrous but it's true, and also quite sobering: when No Time to Die came out, there were millions of Americans driving cars who weren't even born when Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond.

    For the series to survive after much of its primary fanbase has died, these younger audiences need to see it as something that belongs to them too. At the moment, they possess a more intimate connection to the Fast and Furious films and, in particular, Marvel.

    Of course, this isn't to say that these other franchises don't have their own concerns: Post-Avengers: Endgame, Marvel is currently experiencing its own transition as new characters are being introduced to fill the gaps left by Iron Man and the first Captain America. At the moment, they're relying heavily on Spider-Man, even positioning him as the face of their brand, to keep things moving and, perhaps, distract from the fact that Robert Downey Jr is no longer involved in these films. (Whether they can sustain such a profile and profit without Downey remains to be seen). Star Wars, meanwhile, is focussing on the small screen after the somewhat mixed reception of the sequel films, not to mention the many online insurgents ever angry at Kathleen Kennedy.

    A regular cycle of films, I think, is healthy for a 21st-century film franchise. They have to stay relevant. We're constantly bombarded with new TV shows at home and films at the cinema. It makes people move on very quickly. Game of Thrones, for example, seems like a long time ago, yet it only ended in 2019 (though it could also be said that people moved on from that before the end). Remember when Tom HIddleston was a favourite for Bond when The Night Manager was shown? Gosh, that was early 2016, yet it seems quaint, even chucklesome, to think about now. Like Tamagotchis or trust in government.

  • Asp9mmAsp9mm Over the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,291MI6 Agent

    Sony put out Spidey, not Disney/Marvel. Which is why it gave fans what they want and is a raging success. The new Marvel films are far removed from that, more concentrating on identity politics. Which is why they are doing very badly. People want to have fun watching a film. Not have a lecture. I think it’s going to be an uphill struggle making Bond relevant again for younger audiences. Even I’ll be happy if they leave it be now.

    ..................Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,426Chief of Staff

    Well, I wouldn't be and I'm one of the senior citizens mentioned above. I'm for a regular release schedule, and maximum hype in between, ie pretty much the opposite of what we've been getting.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    yeh, I can imagine there'll come a point when the BondMovies are successfully reinvented to appeal to a much younger audience, and I just wont care anymore, though I'll probably still watch the films out of habit.

    like Star Trek, I'm a huge fan of (the real) Kirk and Spock, and Picard and Data and the 80s and 90s spinoffs, but could not get into the Enterprise prequel where they they were wearing jeans and swearing. then came the Jar Jar Abrams films with a reimagined Kirk and Spock, and everybody knew kung-fu and something exploded every five minutes, and they never stood round the bridge debating philosophy, and to me that was Star Trek in name only. I'm sure it'll happen to Bond one day, and if they make money that's great but I wont feel the need to care anymore.

  • superdaddysuperdaddy englandPosts: 896MI6 Agent

    Amen Barbel Amen!!

  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,426Chief of Staff

    Thanks, superdaddy!

  • HalfMonk HalfHitmanHalfMonk HalfHitman USAPosts: 2,161MI6 Agent


    I agree with you about the younger audience being needed to be waved in. Catering to the older crowd (among whom I'm one) is a recipe for extinction. They need to take a page out of Spider-Man's book. Appeals to multiple generations, has an accessible merchandising angle for multiple income brackets, and feels current despite being a 60-year-old property.

    I just don't think forcing them to s hit one out every 24 months no matter what fixes any of that.

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent


    These recent Spiderman films are a Sony/Marvel partnership. They basically got burned with the Garfield films so Amy Pascal went to Feige for help. Now Sony pays for the films, and Marvel makes them, then keeps a smaller (I think about 25%, though probably more now) percentage of the profits. Good choice, not least as Spiderman merchandise outsells Batman (cannily, Marvel has full rights to those).

  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,426Chief of Staff

    @HalfMonk HalfHitman I didn't say "s hit one out every 24 months" (if that was meant for me), I said a regular schedule. Over the last ?20 years it's been anything but regular. Yes, I know that Covid delayed the last one but even so the releases have been very irregular and to my mind too far apart. The long gaps are what causes audiences, particularly younger ones, to lose interest.

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent
    edited January 30

    That would be great, getting Bond to be popular with all ages (and genders, come to that). I'm not suggesting a one-film/two-year cycle would achieve this on its own. But it would help enormously. I remember the Brosnan era when it felt like the series was truly current and alive. Yet it seems silly to even type the phrase 'Craig era' when that covers no less than five Prime Ministers.

    If a sale does occur, and assuming Amazon acquires MGM and the Eon rights, it could potentiate an exciting and unprecedented period for the series. Call me optimistic, but that could make these last sixty years seem a mere prologue by comparison.

  • HalfMonk HalfHitmanHalfMonk HalfHitman USAPosts: 2,161MI6 Agent
    edited January 30

    I think what we're learning with the Boba Fett series is that some giant conglomerate owning a franchise and upping the content volume doesn't always work out. There's something bespoke about the Bond films that, to me, is a big part of their charm. Good decisions or bad, I prefer the small-batch blockbuster vibe, even moreso now that corporations increasingly own everything.

    Amazon has yet to prove they can deliver the quality (and more importantly to me, the personality) we all want. I got to watch their upcoming Jack Reacher series and, while die-hard fans of the books might be quite pleased, it felt like a glorified TNT series.

    Perhaps our ages are a factor, but to me there was something... expected and obligatory about the Brosnan films at the time. After Goldeneye, which was a return after a six-year hiatus, they all felt like something just this side of programmers, not the can't-miss events that CR, Skyfall and NTTD were.

  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 25,632Chief of Staff

    Yes well, no wonder you do because if Eon stick to their two films in decade then you’ve probably got 2 and a bit films left 👀🤗😱🤣

    YNWA 97
    Currently Head of Station C: Canada 🇨🇦
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 33,426Chief of Staff

    That's true, but since they would have starred Craig maybe I should count my mercies.

    More seriously, I ain't getting any younger and the more Bond films before I go the merrier!

  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent

    You say that, but The Book of Bobba Fett has been very well-received. It has 81% on RT. I haven't seen it myself.

    I loved a couple of TNT shows, myself (Leverage and Perception), though haven't seen the Reacher series so can't comment on that either (not sure what you mean by "personality", however).

    The Bond filmes, though, are a genre which are typically used as "programmers", as you call them. It's part of the lineage that extends back to Dick Barton Special Agent and, even further, to Sexton Blake story-papers.

    I agree that the post-GE Brosnans weren't great (though Tomorrow Never Dies is one of my favourites), but I wouldn't necessarily put that down to time constraints. Die Another Day came out three years after The World Is Not Enough, and Skyfall (albeit with a script hampered by a litany of egregious plotholes) was four years after Quantum.

  • Asp9mmAsp9mm Over the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,291MI6 Agent

    Book of Boba is getting slammed everywhere. I wouldn’t go off Rotten Tomatoes. Those ratings are no longer independent and useful. It is pretty dire though. Shame. Been waiting 37 years for a Boba film/series.

    ..................Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............
  • welshboy78welshboy78 Posts: 10,125MI6 Agent

    Yeah its been quite mediocre - surprised they went for Boba straight after the Mandalorian, would of made more sense to go for something of a different flavour like Obi-Wan.

    As for Bond I am happy to wait but I hate all this next Bond media speculation - hope they put that part to bed soon regardless if a film is miles away

    Instagram - bondclothes007
  • DavidJonesDavidJones BermondseyPosts: 253MI6 Agent
    edited January 31

    Of course, just because Star Wars has delivered something mediocre doesn't mean it would happen with Bond too. It all depends on the talent behind it.

    After all, the '60s gave us a good run of Bond films however you count them, and the first five came out on an annual basis.

    I know that was then, and this is now, but there's no law that says these films should have explosive action and high-wire stunts throughout.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    the first four, to be precise, there was a gap before You Only Live Twice and the "funny" version Casino Royale slipped in while audiences were waiting

    but as important as the regular schedule was a consistent behind the scenes team. also, those early films coincided with (caused?) a cinematic trend that others followed. The same cannot be said today

  • The Domino EffectThe Domino Effect Posts: 3,545MI6 Agent

    It's so funny that you say this, Sir Miles (and Ancient Barbel of the Highlands) as I was just having the same thought yesterday. Barring being squashed by falling gourds or other such unpredictably premature ends to life (well, it could happen!), if you think that DC's reign was 16 years, SC's was 11 (plus NSNA) and Moore's was 12 years, the next Bond could be the last that some of us see (thoroughly depressing thought, I know). Not that I am planning on shuffling off my mortal coil in the Sea of Japan anytime soon, but as we get older, things deteriorate. 🤕

Sign In or Register to comment.