I'm here to meet with Michael G. Wilson, who, for the first time, shares a producer's credit on a James Bond film along with his step-father, Albert R. Broccoli.

I'm shown into the offices of Warfield Productions (that's the name on the door - it's Cubby's 'other' production company, the one that made "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" in 1968) and wait for Michael Wilson to arrive. As I wait, reading the obligatory trade mags on the coffee table, in walks Cubby Broccoli. I have never met Cubby before, and his physical presence matches up with his legendary status as an industry giant. He is a physically big man who's presence you can't escape. As he comes in he looks down at this young reporter who's totally in over awed by the situation.

"What are you doing here?" Cubby asks.

"I'm here to interview Michael," I reply sheepishly, as if I've been caught somewhere I shouldn't be.

"Okay, he'll be along shortly," says Cubby as he strolls off to his office. Maybe he's disappointed that I'm not here for him.

Now to give you some perspective, it's just after lunch and Cubby's the only one in the office. The phone rings and Cubby takes the call on a speakerphone. It's someone who's a friend of a friend who's called to bullshit for a while. Suddenly, after some bullshitting, the caller asks "Who's this?"

"It's Cubby," comes the reply. "Oh!" And the caller gulps, realizing that he's been bullshitting the big man. Timidly the caller tries to back track and make good. "How's the new film, then?" He asks.

"We just delivered it to the studio yesterday," Cubby informs the caller. The caller, out of his depth, wishes Cubby best of luck with the film and finishes the call hastily.

I, too, am too timid to gather the courage to talk to Cubby. This is much to my own dismay, as I really want to, but can't quite do it. Cubby wasn't terribly busy and would probably have been glad of the company. But like a loon I just sit there, smiling whenever Cubby looked over. How many fools like myself had the man had to endure?

My anxiety is relieved when Michael Wilson with his entourage arrives, that includes Mrs. Wilson and Saul Cooper, the then marketing guru for Danjaq. They are all delightful, with introductions being made by Michael who asks me what my beat is.

I'm ushered into Michael's office, which features a full-size standee that dates from the 1987 era as it is James Bond in his traditional pose with the question, "Who will be the next James Bond?" That aside there is precious little Bond memorabilia on display, lending an air of temporary digs to the set up. They do, however, have a balcony with a great view of the old MGM lot. Michael takes his place behind his big desk and we get down to business.

Q: Your background is as a lawyer and you graduated college in electrical engineering. With that in mind, were you always destined to be a producer of James Bond films or did you have other careers in mind?

A: (He laughs) I didn't think I was going to be a film producer when I started out. I thought I'd be a scientist first and then a lawyer. I was a lawyer for about 10 years, practicing in Washington, DC, in the government first and then into private practice. And then I was made the managing partner of the New York office of our firm. We were international tax lawyers - I was the international business and tax specialist.

Q: So how did you make the leap into motion pictures?

A: Well, I came over to help Cubby out at a particular time. I took a leave of absence in 1974.

Q: Was that after Harry Saltzman left the partnership?

A: No, this was before Harry Saltzman bailed out. It was one of the reasons that I took the leave of absence. When that was settled in '76 I stayed on and got involved in production and then writing.

Q: Regarding the writing, you've shared the last few credits with Richard Maibaum. Not much call for screenwriting as an attorney? Had you done much writing?

A: Well a lot of people think lawyers deal in a lot of writing fiction anyways. A lot of people think it wasn't much of a switch. Obviously it was just something that came up as a producer, developing the property - it turned out that Dick and I became a team.

Q: One of the things that happened with the Bond films after you took a writing credit was a return to the Ian Fleming stories. "For Your Eyes Only" featured "Risico," "Octopussy" featured "The Property of a Lady," and "The Living Daylights" built on Fleming's short story. Is that something that you tried to push or was it something you all agreed upon?

A: It's very hard to attribute a particular direction to a particular person. It's just a mixture of personalities. It's Cubby, myself, Dick Maibaum and the directors we've had - in the last five we've had John Glenn, who's really responsible for the development of the ideas for a Bond.

Q: The routine of the Bond films appears to be that as soon as one film is in the can you're immediately developing the next project.

A: I haven't ever said that. Usually we wait until the marketing - we get involved in the marketing and it's a pretty engrossing activity, and it's difficult to write a script at the same time - but not impossible. It just turns out that we also have a big company that has a lot of administrative business issues that have to be dealt with - and they tend to sit on the back burner while we're writing and producing a picture - and it just takes the opportunity to take a little more time to get down to dealing with the company which is a major consideration. So, the administrative activities take a lot of time. Now I'm not the Executive Producer any more. I was on two of the films, but Cubby and I are the producers on the last three films.

Q: This summer (1989) is going to be a particularly busy summer box-office. Are you at all worried about the competition? You have a lot of other sequels and franchises out there?

A: I think that to the extent that there's some good films there and that people do get into the habit of going to the cinema. And when they're satisfied they tend to go back the next week. So very often having a number of good pictures out at the same time lifts the total box-office. Of course, it is a finite situation. We are competing for passive leisure time. So you have to have a product that stands out of the group. And I think we have it.

Q: What can we expect from the new Bond?

A: Well, I think that Bond is going back with Timothy Dalton to a more serious vein - a much more realism based situation. So the people who you would normally associate as competition with us, "Star Trek," "Indiana Jones" and "Batman," they are fantasy with strong elements of comedy. And we are not that. We are an action/adventure film with humorous moments - but it's not playing for the comedy that some of those other films are playing for. You know, this particular film has a PG-13 for the first time for a Bond.

Q: Why is that?

A: Excessive violence.

Q: Is that something you're happy with?

A: Oh we all enjoy some good blood and gore! (Laughs). No, this particular story, because it deals with a serious situation and has, tries to deal with it in a way that is closer to reality, has made the censors rate it higher than they would normally.

Q: So you think that's a reaction to the subject matter rather than the violence on the screen?

A: Oh I don't think that we particularly go out to throw a lot of chopped liver at the lens. That's not our style. We wrote the script, we told the story, we told it in a way that was not comic and I think that made the sensors feel the way they do.

Q: This is an interesting point. The tone of the Bond films have been getting more serious. There's a huge gap between "A View to a Kill" and "The Living Daylights." It's hard to believe that the same team made those two films. How do you account for that?

A: Well I think that's Timothy. I think that Roger Moore had a style of playing the character in a highly comic way and that took our films in that direction. And I think it spawned a lot of people - I wouldn't say they're imitators, that's the wrong word - they saw that as a possibility. So we have "Star Wars," "Raiders," and a number of other films that play on the comedy/action film. And with Timothy coming into the role we saw an opportunity to break away from that. Whether we're just going to be in a direction that proves unpopular with the audience I don't know. They might get fed up with it, having the same kind of film. All these other films are very similar. They're different in what they're doing, but "Ghostbusters" and all those are a lot of puff candy. We're just trying to give them something different.

Q: Originally the film started production as "Licence Revoked" and then changed to "Licence to Kill." There have been other films with that title, one a '60s Bond spoof (the Charles Vine spoof "Licensed to Kill" in 1965).

A: I haven't noticed anybody concerned about it. The people who are marketing the film like the title very much. It is from the Fleming books, it's a line we've used, and is associated with Bond. It's a subtitle, if you like, it's one of the things that you can say means James Bond. Licence to Kill means Bond.

Q: There was also the John Gardner book, "Licence Renewed." Was that something you were concious of? As I believe you have the rights to that book.

A: That's right. Well, I wasn't, the publisher was a little more concerned about that. I wasn't worried about it. The books are not popular. They're not mass media entertainment. And the overlap between our two audiences is pretty low. If the books sold a million copies it would be a rounding success. We have to have 12 million people in the doors before we even consider ourselves off the ground. And the overlap between those two audiences is pretty low. The awareness is more among more informed people like yourself than it is among the general public.

Q: With that in mind, any plans to go ahead with Gardner's novels?

A: Not at this time, no.

Q: How do you come up with ideas, year in year out? You've pretty much exhausted the Fleming stories and you've finally exhausted the Fleming titles - you've got "The Quantum of Solace" and "The Hildebrand Rarity" to go (Wilson laughs at the notion) - so how do you come up with a new Bond?

A: Well this one was based on contemporary readings of what we're seeing in the newspapers. Obviously our villain is modeled on Carlos Noriega and Carlos Lederer and was put in prison for 150 years. These are types of characters that are out there - colorful and interesting. And we thought we'd base our characters and situations on them. We also, I'd seen a lot of films and stories that deal with drugs and involved in law enforcement in the United States, and the effect of drugs in the United States. And a lot of people said to me, 'Well look, if you do this who do you hurt? Nobody. Why is everyone up in arms, so excited about it?' Well I thought, if we looked at the effect on the countries from which drugs are produced, and through which they traverse to get here, how the enormous power and influence that these criminal people enjoy, and how the effect the democratic institutions and political institutions of these countries - would be a very interesting way to look at it.

Q: And that's in the film?

A: Well that's the only aspect of the drugs that is dealt with in the film.

Q: Unlike "Live and Let Die" in which heroin is being given away? (There's no answer)

Q: Tell us about the development of this film?

A: Well, I started out in September of 1987, writing. We had a few false starts, we went to China and did some investigations. Finally in March (1988) we had a treatment delivered when we had the writer's strike. And we went into pre-production and started shooting in July, and finished in Thanksgiving. And then we went into post-production and delivered the picture May 8th. We open June 12th in London. And that's the cycle.

Q: Now that you're firmly established as a film producer, and a successful one, do you have any ambitions beyond James Bond?

A: I think one is always interested in pursing some ideas.

Q: Mr. Broccoli made "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" and Mr. Saltzman had a whole career outside of Bond -

A: None of which was terribly successful. Although he did do the Harry Palmer series.

Q: So what is the split in responsibilities between yourself and Mr. Broccoli as co-producers?

A: Well on our pictures there's enough to occupy a couple of producers. We both go on the locations, we have a lot of second units. Both work in the creative area.

Q: You've had a lot of success with John Glen, he's the longest running director, sequentially, in the series. Will he be on board for the next one?

A: There's no reason why he shouldn't. He's doing a picture in between and hopefully he'll be available.

Q: How do you get the girls to do these films?

A: (Laughs incredulously at the bizarre question) How do we get the girls to do them? Great money!

Q: But being a Bond girl can often be the kiss of death to a career?

A: It seems to me that Jane Seymour is the mini-series Queen. There are very few actresses who have enjoyed as much success as she has. Cary Lowell has already got a new movie, this week in fact.

Q: Maybe it's just a visibility issue, but even with the bad guys it seems that they're huge as villains, but then disappear from the scene.

A: It depends. Sometimes we pull a Curt Jurgens or a Louis Jordan who haven't worked in a long time and bring them out of retirement. It doesn't mean they're not successful. Christopher Walken, he's a major working actor...And Jeron Krabbe, he's very successful.

Q: Have the changes at United Artists effected you?

A: Yes, it's a very disruptive thing to have business ownership change - to have the studio heads resigning. For example, on this picture we started with Andy Fogelson when we were in pre-production he was head of marketing. He then left, and then they brought in Gordon Weaver. He lasted til just before we finished, and then Greg Morrison came in. He left and now we have David Forbes. So we had four different heads of marketing. And that's where we overlap the most with the studio. The production people are not as involved with our production as they would be with normal filmmakers - they leave us alone. But the marketing people it's crucial that we work with them closely and develop a good marketing campaign. Especially with this one when we're making such a major departure from where we've been going. So I think it's something that the marketing people must deal with. And they're a little bit afraid - they feel they have a solid audience and they don't want to lose that - so they don't know how, they're pussyfooting around saying what this film is about.

Q: That's interesting because the trailer doesn't layout any of that over. Did you do the trailer or was that UA?

A: United Artists. Anyway, as I was saying about the girls, we've got Carey Lowell, Talisa Soto. It's Talisa's first movie, she a top model. So she has a very interesting role. She's the girlfriend of the villain and caught in this situation and copes with it by using her feminine charms in order to survive. The other girl is a sort of a no-nonsense, take charge type of personality. Goes under a transformation. Dresses a certain way to play a role. So we have these two sub plots going on.

Q: I read that you're killing off Felix Leiter in this one?

A: We're not killing him. He just gets maimed badly. We took that same episode from "Live and Let Die" and put it in this film. His wife is killed. It all happens on their wedding day.

Saul Cooper: She dies a virgin.

Wilson: Well, I wouldn't go that far. (Laughs!) It's Priscilla Barnes!

Q: Any ambitions about going into directing?

A: I have no ambitions for John Glen's job.

Q: What movies do you go to?

A: Everything. Everything. And I'm not very critical unless it's really awful. I just enjoy them as any member of the public.