Skyfall went down similar dead ends in the scripting process, and the producers openly cited the four-year gap as saving the film, saying something like "If we'd released the film we were developing in 2010, it wouldn't have been as good."
It's not a stretch to speculate that the experience of meeting release dates for QoS during a writer's strike, and having to power through development stumbles to make Spectre's release date, plus the aforementioned experience of having extra time to let Skyfall properly marinate, has colored how they approach the franchise going forward.
I just don't think you have a franchise if it's a film every four or even five years. A normal movie contract is three plus an optional fourth. Three films with your timeframe is 12 to 15 years, will the actor even want to continue after ten years? Connery did less than 10, Moore did 12, Dalton less than five, Brosnan seven, and DC did 13 years (as NTTD filming ended in October 2019). Will audiences really want to know if they are only going to get a film about every five years? The MGM investors sure won't like being told the potential billion dollar Bond movie only comes once every four to five years. And Fleming's copyright ends in 2034. A 2026 Bond26 will see anyone be able to make a Bond film just eight years later. Time for one more EON Bond, according to your timetable. I bet MGM investors would love that, not. And you may not have liked Spectre but it took $883 million and NTTD took $770+ million during a Pandemic. Bond makes Bank. It has to be three years, to balance audience expectations, investors expectations and the time actors are prepared to give - not 20 years of their life.
Good points, Someone. While EON shouldn't film a movie if the script isn't good, the plan really needs to be a movie every three years. I think the solution is using two writers' teams. The two teams and the producers could meet every two weeks or something to make sure they're not both making a snowmobile chase or the most developed script kills off Tanner and the other team has long scenes with him. They could also suggest new ideas to the producers. Amazon would pay for two teams if it means a movie every three years instead of five.
I'm afraid you are mistaken about the 2034 deadline. IFP and Danjaq are two distinct entities, and even after this year, the second will remain the only company legally allowed to (co)produce movies featuring the character. It's part of the 1961 deal between Fleming, Cubby and Saltzman. It's a lifetime and exclusive deal.
In the film industry, the "James Bond 007" trademark is the exclusive property of MGM and Danjaq. They don't owe Fleming's beneficiaries the rights to use the character in the movies, and the fact Fleming's name appears in the title sequences is just a reminder of who created Bond.
CR67 and NSNA are special cases and believe me or not, there will be no rival movie after 2034, unless the Broccoli clan decides to drop the rights in the future, which seems very unlikely. What you have to understand is the 1961 deal protects Danjaq FOREVER legalwise.
I am massively confused about the trademark thing and whether it allows them to control it indefinitely or not (I know the trademark will run indefinitely, I just don't know what the impact of that is), but you're certainly right about IFP not having any ownership in Bond- if you open any recent Bond book from them you'll see that they have to licence James Bond from MGM/Danjaq.
I know it seems confusing, but you have to refer to the conditions of the 1961 deal. In the film industry, this deal implies the James Bond 007 character is the exclusive property of MGM and Danjaq. Just forget the link between Fleming and the movies, it doesn't exist legalwise, and it will be the same after 2034. Cubby secured his baby for life.
SeanIsTheOnlyOne said: It's part of the 1961 deal between Fleming, Cubby and Saltzman. It's a lifetime and exclusive deal.
_______________
SeanIsTheOnlyOne said: Cubby secured his baby for life.
_______________
SeanIsTheOnlyOne said: What you have to understand is the 1961 deal protects Danjaq FOREVER legalwise.
_______________
wait, now I'm confused. You twice said Cubby signed a lifetime deal, and Cubby died in 1996. And you also said its a "forever" deal. which is it?
how would this relate to the recent public domain status of a specific version of Mickey Mouse, that seen in Steamboat Willy, while all subsequent images of Mickey Mouse are still copywrited to Disney?
@caractacus potts the lifetime deal concerns MGM/UA and Danjaq, not Cubby. That's why he had his daughter and MGW run the company. It's a forever deal because he and Saltzman agreed with Fleming Danjaq would be forever the only entity legally owning 50% of the rights of the character within the whole film industry. Filmwise, it's almost like if Bond had been created by UA and Danjaq, not Fleming. There are two exceptions, CR67 and NSNA, but the legal rights of CR and TB were owned by Feldman and McClory before Danjaq was created.
For Disney, I guess the legal terms are different from the ones we are currently dealing with. The James Bond 007 trademark seems to be a very unique case.
the lifetime deal concerns MGM/UA and Danjaq, not Cubby. That's why he had his daughter and MGW run the company. It's a forever deal because he and Saltzman agreed with Fleming Danjaq would be forever the only entity legally owning 50% of the rights of the character within the whole film industry. Filmwise, it's almost like if Bond had been created by UA and Danjaq, not Fleming. There are two exceptions, CR67 and NSNA, but the legal rights of CR and TB were owned by Feldman and McClory before Danjaq was created.
_____________________________________________
thanks for clarifying Sean, lifetime of Danjaq makes more sense. So: no chance or a public domain BondFilm anytime soon, maybe never. I only care because I suspect somebody else might do it better. I dont actually wish for anybody to lose their property
even if the Mickey Mouse law applied (I believe it is informally called that), its 95 years since Steamboat Willie. So adding 95 years, we'd have to wait til 2057 to make a public domain film with the version of Bond seen in Dr No, I might not get the chance to see that one. Though maybe in 2049 we can have a public domain film about CardSense Jimmy Bond, thats something to look forward to.
I just think it's odd that no one bats an eye over Mission: Impossible spending 30 years to make eight films, but Bond making nine films in the same time span is somehow proof the franchise is ruined. Only slasher movies operate on the old Bond release model at this point.
Tom Cruise's choices for his first three MI films reflect his career at the time. He created the MI movies as a vehicle for himself. The big gaps between MI:II and MI:III and Ghost Protocol were because the first two films did badly at the BO after the first movie's success. Later on, obviously, there was Covid. I'd argue that Cruise wanted an MI trilogy originally, but when his career waned he has leaned heavily on MI to boost his cinematic popularity.
You and emtiem are essentially confusing trilogies with franchises. Star Wars has had three film trilogies. Indiana Jones had one trilogy and two other films. When they were made is an outcome of Harrison Ford's wants and needs. Dial of Destiny, need I say more.
A good example of the difference is, Lord of the Rings is a trilogy while Fast and Furious is a franchise with 10 films over 22 years.
The definition of franchise is a "series of related works ... which includes the same characters or different characters that are understood to exist and interact in the same fictional universe". The key word is series. A trilogy is too few for a series. For example in TV, you have a mini-series of four to six episodes. A trilogy is three. A franchise is therefore more than six.
Utter semantics. A trilogy is a series, five films, nine films etc. is a series (or ‘franchise’ if you like, horrible corporate word- to me that applies more to something like Marvel or Godzilla where unrelated people get a crack at the same property, much like owning a franchised McDonalds outlet or something- to me Bond is not a franchise)
I’m not sure what the box office for MI is supposed to prove either- don’t forget they usually cost a lot less than Bonds do to make.
Big movies don’t get released every two years anymore (Marvel is a studio making films concurrently unlike all of these); the last time Star Wars tried it everyone hated how rushed it was.
I think people would be amazed if they knew how little writers get paid for scripts that are the basis for a $200 million movie that goes on to gross three times that much. While the big script deals that are six or seven figures do occur when there is a studio bidding war, this is rare and in reality it is not unusual for a writer to be paid about $75,000 for a script which represents many months work and maybe the only script job they get in a year.
IMHO EON has the funds to pay P&W and others to constantly be writing, one or more scripts could constantly be in the works, and this could deliver better quality within that 3 year framework.
So: no chance or a public domain BondFilm anytime soon, maybe never. I only care because I suspect somebody else might do it better. I dont actually wish for anybody to lose their property
@caractacus potts that's part of the game. With such a monopoly, the audience depends on the creative choices of the very few people who decide what to do with the franchise, for better or for worse. Concerning Bond, I think the way they've been working so far is respectful towards Fleming, and that's the most important thing to me.
But for God's sake, please make Bond 26 a genuine spy thriller like FRWL, FYEO, TLD, and even CR06. I desperately miss this kind of approach. The global context seems very suitable for such a Bond film, and it would be a shame not to introduce the next actor like Dalton and Craig have been. I'm fed up with villains connected to Bond or his entourage and who mainly act for revenge. After Trevelyan, Silva, Oberhauser and Safin, I think we got it. Emotions are important indeed but you cannot repeat the same pattern forever. I love what they did with Le Chiffre, and although I don't know what they intend to do with Fleming's material in the future (the continuation novels could be another spring...), they have enough elements to create something interesting. Will they do it ? I don't know. I hope the terrible Amazon's Road to a million is not the beginning of a trend for the Bond franchise...
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,485MI6 Agent
edited February 23
“Indiana Jones had one trilogy and two other films.”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thats funny on so many levels beyond this discussion.
.................................
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,485MI6 Agent
I might have to move my estimate of a 2027 release of a new Bond film to 2028. EoN are not moving anything forward at this point, which is no surprise, but I’m getting increasingly resonant vibes that that won’t change until the end of next year.
Amazon only owns MGM, which means 50% of the rights. If the Broccoli clan doesn't share their creative vision for the future of the franchise, I think it's a crucial point, and I'm glad there are still people to be aware of Cubby's legacy (and Fleming's). When you look at the way Disney have been working since 2012, there's nothing to be proud of. I don't want Danjaq to become the Lucasfilm/Marvel of Bond.
Alternatively: he'd be incredibly proud that it's still going and amazed they have cracked the billon dollars gross. None of us can know what he'd think.
Amazon makes over a billion dollars a day. Each day. There is absolutely no financial pressure to get a new Bond movie out.
I'm repeating myself (I think we all are, but hey), but a pronounced delay between NTTD and Bond 26 might even be a strategy, a long pause to clear out the old generation of fans (that'd be us) and helping shift the optics that this is an "old" franchise. A true reinvention (Eon's words, as per the subject of this thread) might need to put what's come before in the rearview somewhat. We're all going on about "the next film"; they're likely mapping out the next era.
But according to BB, Purvis & Wade are likely to be involved in Bond 26, which somehow doesn't really fit with the notion of "reinvention". Wouldn't brand new writers be more appropriate to inject some fresh air ?
The same thing could've been said before Casino Royale - the fact Purvis and Wade were kept on after churning out the worst screenplay in Bond history is astonishing. This is coming from someone who enjoys Die Another Day as pure unremitting noughties cheese, but they are absolute hacks.
Comments
Skyfall went down similar dead ends in the scripting process, and the producers openly cited the four-year gap as saving the film, saying something like "If we'd released the film we were developing in 2010, it wouldn't have been as good."
It's not a stretch to speculate that the experience of meeting release dates for QoS during a writer's strike, and having to power through development stumbles to make Spectre's release date, plus the aforementioned experience of having extra time to let Skyfall properly marinate, has colored how they approach the franchise going forward.
I just don't think you have a franchise if it's a film every four or even five years. A normal movie contract is three plus an optional fourth. Three films with your timeframe is 12 to 15 years, will the actor even want to continue after ten years? Connery did less than 10, Moore did 12, Dalton less than five, Brosnan seven, and DC did 13 years (as NTTD filming ended in October 2019). Will audiences really want to know if they are only going to get a film about every five years? The MGM investors sure won't like being told the potential billion dollar Bond movie only comes once every four to five years. And Fleming's copyright ends in 2034. A 2026 Bond26 will see anyone be able to make a Bond film just eight years later. Time for one more EON Bond, according to your timetable. I bet MGM investors would love that, not. And you may not have liked Spectre but it took $883 million and NTTD took $770+ million during a Pandemic. Bond makes Bank. It has to be three years, to balance audience expectations, investors expectations and the time actors are prepared to give - not 20 years of their life.
Good points, Someone. While EON shouldn't film a movie if the script isn't good, the plan really needs to be a movie every three years. I think the solution is using two writers' teams. The two teams and the producers could meet every two weeks or something to make sure they're not both making a snowmobile chase or the most developed script kills off Tanner and the other team has long scenes with him. They could also suggest new ideas to the producers. Amazon would pay for two teams if it means a movie every three years instead of five.
I'm afraid you are mistaken about the 2034 deadline. IFP and Danjaq are two distinct entities, and even after this year, the second will remain the only company legally allowed to (co)produce movies featuring the character. It's part of the 1961 deal between Fleming, Cubby and Saltzman. It's a lifetime and exclusive deal.
In the film industry, the "James Bond 007" trademark is the exclusive property of MGM and Danjaq. They don't owe Fleming's beneficiaries the rights to use the character in the movies, and the fact Fleming's name appears in the title sequences is just a reminder of who created Bond.
CR67 and NSNA are special cases and believe me or not, there will be no rival movie after 2034, unless the Broccoli clan decides to drop the rights in the future, which seems very unlikely. What you have to understand is the 1961 deal protects Danjaq FOREVER legalwise.
I am massively confused about the trademark thing and whether it allows them to control it indefinitely or not (I know the trademark will run indefinitely, I just don't know what the impact of that is), but you're certainly right about IFP not having any ownership in Bond- if you open any recent Bond book from them you'll see that they have to licence James Bond from MGM/Danjaq.
I replaced Daniel Craig's face from this scene in No Time to Die with Sean Connery and George Lazenby using AI. The effect is uncanny...
Well done, LN (and AI) 👍
I know it seems confusing, but you have to refer to the conditions of the 1961 deal. In the film industry, this deal implies the James Bond 007 character is the exclusive property of MGM and Danjaq. Just forget the link between Fleming and the movies, it doesn't exist legalwise, and it will be the same after 2034. Cubby secured his baby for life.
SeanIsTheOnlyOne said: It's part of the 1961 deal between Fleming, Cubby and Saltzman. It's a lifetime and exclusive deal.
_______________
SeanIsTheOnlyOne said: Cubby secured his baby for life.
_______________
SeanIsTheOnlyOne said: What you have to understand is the 1961 deal protects Danjaq FOREVER legalwise.
_______________
wait, now I'm confused. You twice said Cubby signed a lifetime deal, and Cubby died in 1996. And you also said its a "forever" deal. which is it?
how would this relate to the recent public domain status of a specific version of Mickey Mouse, that seen in Steamboat Willy, while all subsequent images of Mickey Mouse are still copywrited to Disney?
It's wild! I also tried some other ones out....
"I just don't think you have a franchise if it's a film every four or even five years."
Well...
@caractacus potts the lifetime deal concerns MGM/UA and Danjaq, not Cubby. That's why he had his daughter and MGW run the company. It's a forever deal because he and Saltzman agreed with Fleming Danjaq would be forever the only entity legally owning 50% of the rights of the character within the whole film industry. Filmwise, it's almost like if Bond had been created by UA and Danjaq, not Fleming. There are two exceptions, CR67 and NSNA, but the legal rights of CR and TB were owned by Feldman and McClory before Danjaq was created.
For Disney, I guess the legal terms are different from the ones we are currently dealing with. The James Bond 007 trademark seems to be a very unique case.
Indiana Jones would disagree too. Not sure Star Wars wouldn't either, for that matter.
seanisthe only one said:
the lifetime deal concerns MGM/UA and Danjaq, not Cubby. That's why he had his daughter and MGW run the company. It's a forever deal because he and Saltzman agreed with Fleming Danjaq would be forever the only entity legally owning 50% of the rights of the character within the whole film industry. Filmwise, it's almost like if Bond had been created by UA and Danjaq, not Fleming. There are two exceptions, CR67 and NSNA, but the legal rights of CR and TB were owned by Feldman and McClory before Danjaq was created.
_____________________________________________
thanks for clarifying Sean, lifetime of Danjaq makes more sense. So: no chance or a public domain BondFilm anytime soon, maybe never. I only care because I suspect somebody else might do it better. I dont actually wish for anybody to lose their property
even if the Mickey Mouse law applied (I believe it is informally called that), its 95 years since Steamboat Willie. So adding 95 years, we'd have to wait til 2057 to make a public domain film with the version of Bond seen in Dr No, I might not get the chance to see that one. Though maybe in 2049 we can have a public domain film about CardSense Jimmy Bond, thats something to look forward to.
I thought about those, as well 😂
I just think it's odd that no one bats an eye over Mission: Impossible spending 30 years to make eight films, but Bond making nine films in the same time span is somehow proof the franchise is ruined. Only slasher movies operate on the old Bond release model at this point.
Here's the US box office for the MI films.
Tom Cruise's choices for his first three MI films reflect his career at the time. He created the MI movies as a vehicle for himself. The big gaps between MI:II and MI:III and Ghost Protocol were because the first two films did badly at the BO after the first movie's success. Later on, obviously, there was Covid. I'd argue that Cruise wanted an MI trilogy originally, but when his career waned he has leaned heavily on MI to boost his cinematic popularity.
You and emtiem are essentially confusing trilogies with franchises. Star Wars has had three film trilogies. Indiana Jones had one trilogy and two other films. When they were made is an outcome of Harrison Ford's wants and needs. Dial of Destiny, need I say more.
A good example of the difference is, Lord of the Rings is a trilogy while Fast and Furious is a franchise with 10 films over 22 years.
The definition of franchise is a "series of related works ... which includes the same characters or different characters that are understood to exist and interact in the same fictional universe". The key word is series. A trilogy is too few for a series. For example in TV, you have a mini-series of four to six episodes. A trilogy is three. A franchise is therefore more than six.
Utter semantics. A trilogy is a series, five films, nine films etc. is a series (or ‘franchise’ if you like, horrible corporate word- to me that applies more to something like Marvel or Godzilla where unrelated people get a crack at the same property, much like owning a franchised McDonalds outlet or something- to me Bond is not a franchise)
I’m not sure what the box office for MI is supposed to prove either- don’t forget they usually cost a lot less than Bonds do to make.
Big movies don’t get released every two years anymore (Marvel is a studio making films concurrently unlike all of these); the last time Star Wars tried it everyone hated how rushed it was.
I think people would be amazed if they knew how little writers get paid for scripts that are the basis for a $200 million movie that goes on to gross three times that much. While the big script deals that are six or seven figures do occur when there is a studio bidding war, this is rare and in reality it is not unusual for a writer to be paid about $75,000 for a script which represents many months work and maybe the only script job they get in a year.
IMHO EON has the funds to pay P&W and others to constantly be writing, one or more scripts could constantly be in the works, and this could deliver better quality within that 3 year framework.
https://www.google.com/search?q=confirmation+bias&rlz=1CAZBMY_enUS624US626&oq=confirmation+bias&aqs=chrome..69i57.4374j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
So: no chance or a public domain BondFilm anytime soon, maybe never. I only care because I suspect somebody else might do it better. I dont actually wish for anybody to lose their property@caractacus potts that's part of the game. With such a monopoly, the audience depends on the creative choices of the very few people who decide what to do with the franchise, for better or for worse. Concerning Bond, I think the way they've been working so far is respectful towards Fleming, and that's the most important thing to me.
But for God's sake, please make Bond 26 a genuine spy thriller like FRWL, FYEO, TLD, and even CR06. I desperately miss this kind of approach. The global context seems very suitable for such a Bond film, and it would be a shame not to introduce the next actor like Dalton and Craig have been. I'm fed up with villains connected to Bond or his entourage and who mainly act for revenge. After Trevelyan, Silva, Oberhauser and Safin, I think we got it. Emotions are important indeed but you cannot repeat the same pattern forever. I love what they did with Le Chiffre, and although I don't know what they intend to do with Fleming's material in the future (the continuation novels could be another spring...), they have enough elements to create something interesting. Will they do it ? I don't know. I hope the terrible Amazon's Road to a million is not the beginning of a trend for the Bond franchise...
“Indiana Jones had one trilogy and two other films.”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thats funny on so many levels beyond this discussion.
I might have to move my estimate of a 2027 release of a new Bond film to 2028. EoN are not moving anything forward at this point, which is no surprise, but I’m getting increasingly resonant vibes that that won’t change until the end of next year.
Will have 6 seasons of Amazons Road to a Million by then 😂
MGM paid $8.5 BILLION with a B in 2022 for MGM. And they have to wait six years for a Bond movie? Nah.
Amazon only owns MGM, which means 50% of the rights. If the Broccoli clan doesn't share their creative vision for the future of the franchise, I think it's a crucial point, and I'm glad there are still people to be aware of Cubby's legacy (and Fleming's). When you look at the way Disney have been working since 2012, there's nothing to be proud of. I don't want Danjaq to become the Lucasfilm/Marvel of Bond.
Albert would be so ashamed of the last move and of the neglect of the series in general.
Alternatively: he'd be incredibly proud that it's still going and amazed they have cracked the billon dollars gross. None of us can know what he'd think.
Amazon makes over a billion dollars a day. Each day. There is absolutely no financial pressure to get a new Bond movie out.
I'm repeating myself (I think we all are, but hey), but a pronounced delay between NTTD and Bond 26 might even be a strategy, a long pause to clear out the old generation of fans (that'd be us) and helping shift the optics that this is an "old" franchise. A true reinvention (Eon's words, as per the subject of this thread) might need to put what's come before in the rearview somewhat. We're all going on about "the next film"; they're likely mapping out the next era.
But according to BB, Purvis & Wade are likely to be involved in Bond 26, which somehow doesn't really fit with the notion of "reinvention". Wouldn't brand new writers be more appropriate to inject some fresh air ?
The same thing could've been said before Casino Royale - the fact Purvis and Wade were kept on after churning out the worst screenplay in Bond history is astonishing. This is coming from someone who enjoys Die Another Day as pure unremitting noughties cheese, but they are absolute hacks.