"Thank God we have a very strong fan base [...] they've been very forgiving at times when we've steered off course." - Barbara Broccoli

Quote :

Broccoli, Wilson remain 007's brains
50 Years of James Bond
By Diana Lodderhose


Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson mark the start of production on 'Skyfall' last November in London.

Step-siblings Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson may be sitting atop one of the longest-running and most lucrative film franchises (more than $3.5 billion total gross), but the dynamic "Bond" producer duo make sure to never rest on their laurels.

Since Broccoli, along with Wilson, inherited the James Bond franchise after her acclaimed father, Cubby, passed away, the pair have pushed the epic film series to even greater stature whilst also keeping 007 close to its roots.

"You've got to take risks with a franchise and we haven't been afraid to make changes and adapt with the times," says Broccoli, who notes that even James Bond's creator, Ian Fleming, told her father that he would have to invent stories and new capers because he believed the film series would outlive the books.

And so it has.

Since taking the helm at Eon Productions in 1996, Broccoli and Wilson have reinvented the franchise twice and seen the pics generate more than $2.6 billion, with each of their Bond releases outperforming its predecessor at the U.S. box office.

One key to that success has been recognizing when to inject fresh blood and new story angles.

A case in point: recasting Daniel Craig, a younger, rugged blond, as Bond. Craig's 007 persona is a far cry from Pierce Brosnan's sultry, suave interpretation.

"When we got the rights to do 'Casino Royale' for the first time, it meant we needed to reset it back and it meant we needed a new face for Bond," Wilson says.

Broccoli puts the longevity of the franchise down to two things: First, staying true to "the principles that Cubby started."

Cubby wanted Bond pics to be producer-driven, so his heirs feel it's important for them to be hands-on, just as he was.

"There's always someone at the helm and someone with an eye on the ball," says Barbara Broccoli. "We set parameters given the changing times and some things sometimes shift within those parameters."

Also following Cubby's lead, they try to be collaborative, and to be respectful of Fleming's character whilst not being afraid to push boundaries.

Second, Barbara Broccoli and Wilson point to Bond's loyal fans as perhaps the most important driver steering the franchise past the 50-year mark. "Thank God we have a very strong fan base because we make films for them and they've been very forgiving at times when we've steered off course," she quips.

"We have a responsibility to keep it going," Wilson adds. "Nobody wants to work on the last James Bond film."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053308

Hmmm. Sounds like they're trying to be all things to all people. Still, it's nice to hear Babs take cognizance of we hardcore Bondheads. To the extent that Micolli really do pay some attention to us (and who knows what extent that really is?), they should not do anything totally destructive to Bond's character. The Bondheads can act as an anchor to prevent the series from reinventing itself into oblivion.

Now about putting Bond in a dress, Babs...

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Hmmm. Sounds like they're trying to be all things to all people. Still, it's nice to hear Babs take cognizance of we hardcore Bondheads. To the extent that Micolli really do pay some attention to us (and who knows what extent that really is?), they should not do anything totally destructive to Bond's character. The Bondheads can act as an anchor to prevent the series from reinventing itself into oblivion.

Now about putting Bond in a dress, Babs...

What I don't get is: what changed with Barbara? She used to get offers for in-depth stories from leading women's journals and magazines back in the 90's about being a female executive producer on the most high-profile, sexist character in cinema, and she used to turn them all down. Where she was once content to be in the background she has now become *THE* face of the Bond series apart from Craig. Did she simply come into her own once her father died? Did she find her voice after a long time in Michael's shadow? She doesn't really ever address any of these questions, though she's perfectly willing to put Bond in a dress.

I'm not sure what to make of it. In a way, it's reassuring, but it's probably just all talk.

I doubt she's talking about Fleming fans.

FieldsMan wrote:

...it's probably just all talk.

Agreed. But the fact that she needs to strike a note of contrition in her remarks means that, at least on some level, our criticism is getting through to her. How she reacts to it is still to be determined.

I'm not saying that if SKYFALL is a disaster that I'll turn away from Bondage, but does she really want to take that chance?

There is a lot of momentum in the Bond franchise, a lot of great stuff in the catalogue to allow fans to skip the odd misfire imo.

I am hearted she is humble enough to admit they got some stuff wrong (not sure we'd agree on what and when howver ^^) but what I really wish I got was a greater sense that she appreciated better what was done right before, what made Bond 'as a whole product' stand apart from the crowd. We still get some great films in her tenure, but the elements that make Bond unique seem to be delivered with an apology rather than a deservedly proud swagger. I am hopeful that the suggestion we are getting 'Bond with a capital B' is an indication this is appreciated, but the aspect i think most absent from the current path is that Bond, ironically, is about more than just getting the central character right. You can get Bond himself spot on but still have steered way off course and vica versa imo and its one or other of those scenarios in essence that characterises the whole era from TND onward - reign one aspect in and lose control of the other etc I think its necessary to persist with a director across more than one film to recover the real core of the franchise, it cant just come from the producers seat.

lachesis wrote:

the elements that make Bond unique seem to be delivered with an apology rather than a deservedly proud swagger.

Excellent point. As Dr. Kananga would put it, "Those who fawn and crawl in the face of feminist intimidation must perforce look up to James Bond, who stands, proudly, wrapped in a justifiable self-confidence.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I doubt she's talking about Fleming fans.

Indeed. There's a difference between die-hard fans of Fleming's Bond and die-hard fans of EON's Bond, just like there's an difference between the characters of the novels and the films.

But thanks, Babsy. Now show us those rock-hard pokers.

Incidentally, what th' 'ell are those thingies Micolli are wearing on their lapels? I probably don't want to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_poppy

Sharky wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_poppy

Ah. Very nice, and a poignant tradition. I guess sometimes you do want to know.

A slight correction to the article: Wilson and Broccoli are half-siblings because they share a common mother. They'd be step siblings if they had no biological parents in common.

More importantly, that acknowledgment of past mistakes was interesting. A pity Variety didn't press her for an example of what she meant.

Let's just hope that Skyfall will be delivered with the "deservedly proud [rather than unjustifiable] swagger" that Lachesis mentions, and have us saying "Thank God the brain trust at EON listens to their very strong fan base..."

Quote :

and to be respectful of Fleming's character whilst not being afraid to push boundaries.

Second, Barbara Broccoli and Wilson point to Bond's loyal fans as perhaps the most important driver steering the franchise past the 50-year mark. "Thank God we have a very strong fan base because we make films for them and they've been very forgiving at times when we've steered off course," she quips.

I think casting Daniel Craig as Bond has pushed boundaries! He looks nothing like Bond and is playing Bond in a radially different way.

I think the Craig reboot is not Bond and the series has been ruined for me since 2006 so I'm one fan who is nt "forgiving". :D

Perhaps the producers are confusing fans and devotees and aficionados with mindless sycophants, of the ilk who insist ALL Star Trek is good or watchable, or who defend every new 300 million dollar film as having 'visual effects miles above 2001 and boring shit like that.'

We are a small minority of Bond fandom, so its doubtful she's mentioning us or rigid Fleming readers.

Why do I always get the feeling that they both know Bond, but don't actually know anything definite about the character? There is a reason why TLD was the last truly interesting Bond film. All of the majorly penned MGW scripts suffer from lack of drive and depth and post 1995, when has Bond really clicked? Never.
There needs to be some people creatively involved who really know and care about 007 and not this caricature of 005.

hegottheboot wrote:

Why do I always get the feeling that they both know Bond, but don't actually know anything definite about the character? There is a reason why TLD was the last truly interesting Bond film. All of the majorly penned MGW scripts suffer from lack of drive and depth and post 1995, when has Bond really clicked? Never.
There needs to be some people creatively involved who really know and care about 007 and not this caricature of 005.

My impression has been that the current production team know the elements of Bond very well, but their own personal agenda's predjudice the presentation in such a way that, unlike Cubby, they can't bring themselves to deliver them all at once alternate films since GE seem to feature as begrudged overcompensations of elements the previous film ommitted.