For 007, Amazon is Not Enough
Erich Schwartzel &
Jessica Toonkel
Yikes. Everyone has known that the production of the next film in the James Bond series was delayed, but most assumed it was because of the need to cast a new Bond post-Daniel Craig. As it turns out, there's a bigger fish to fry:
James Bond has dodged more than 4,000 bullets. He has jumped from an airplane, skied off a cliff and escaped castration by laser beam.
Now, 007 is in a new kind of peril.
Nearly three years after Amazon acquired the right to release Bond movies through its $6.5 billion purchase of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studio, the relationship between the family that oversees the franchise and the e-commerce giant has all but collapsed. The decaying partnership has scuttled any near-term hope of a new Bond film—a black eye for Amazon’s ambitions in Hollywood, since at the time of the MGM sale, the Bond franchise represented a significant share of the $6.5 billion the company paid for the studio.
A $2.35T fish, as it turns out. This report cites no fewer than 20 – over twenty – sources detailing the love lost between brand steward Barbara Broccoli and Amazon.
She has told friends she doesn’t trust algorithm-centric Amazon with a character she helped to mythologize through big-screen storytelling and gut instinct. This fall, she characterized the status of a new movie in dire terms—no script, no story and no new Bond.
To friends, Broccoli has characterized her thoughts on Amazon this way: “These people are f— idiots.”
So yeah, it may be a while before we see Bond back on the big screen.
To that end, and given all the reporting here, it's sort of surprising that Broccoli (and fellow producer Michael Wilson – her step-brother who is much older and nearing retirement) gave their blessing on the MGM/Amazon deal in the first place. I mean, what did they think they were signing up for? Amazon does not make this deal without the Bond franchise and so any hopes that they'd be completely hands-off with the crown jewel were always going to be optimistic. All sides can say the right things to make a deal happen, of course. But they're paying $6.5B. To quote Don Draper, "that's what the money is for!"
The real issue would seem to stem from the unique position Broccoli (and Wilson) are in within the studio that controls the rights. That is, they have near total control over anything and everything that could get a Bond film made – from the script to the choice of Bond himself. It's basically a veto over the entire franchise. And they're clearly choosing to use it right now.
So where does that leave Amazon? Well, they can either turn around and spin off Bond to someone else (how much do you think Apple would be willing to pay?1) or they have to try to make amends. Broccoli, it seems will not be the one backing down:
Broccoli has complained that Amazon isn’t a good home for Bond, since the company’s core business is selling everything from toilet paper to vacuums—a perspective Amazon executives find unfair. But since she makes the creative calls that come first—script, casting, story—Broccoli can hold Bond hostage from Amazon for as long as she sees fit.
In doing so, she quotes a refrain attributed to her father, a film agent who’d sold hair driers before he secured the rights to adapt Ian Fleming’s novels.
“Don’t have temporary people make permanent decisions.”
Before the deal, the biggest worry was seemingly that Amazon would try to ship Bond straight to Prime Video. Such moves were obviously all the rage during the pandemic, but to their credit, Amazon signed on to the notion that Bond would always be a theatrical experience – a notion they've continued to champion for tentpole films, even as their contemporary "new" studios falter or hold fast to streaming (for now). Amazon seemingly has the right mentality here and so you'd think Broccoli could get along with someone like Jennifer Salke, who oversees the studio. But it seems less about the personalities and more about the overall aura around Amazon that bothers Broccoli, if you can read between all these (reported) quotes and thoughts. It's just not clear how you fix that beyond a sale.
Can Andy Jassy step in to help? Can the increasingly Hollywood-ized Jeff Bezos do something to thaw the relations? It sure feels like we're settling in for a long haul without a new Bond.2
It’s a job that has forced her to weather the hot-potato game of studio mergers and consolidations before. Due to the current impasse, the franchise hasn’t moved any closer to its next installment since “No Time to Die” came out in 2021, after a delayed premiere during the pandemic. That’s unusually long for a series that regularly saw releases every year or two starting with “Dr. No” in 1962 and rarely took more than three years off—and it’s a risky lull in today’s crowded entertainment landscape.
There have been lulls before – notably the six years between Timothy Dalton's License to Kill and Pierce Brosnan's first foray (after a long courtship) in Goldeneye. The more recent six year stretch between Spectre and No Time to Die was, of course, mainly due to COVID. And specifically because of the theatrical ideal that Broccoli insisted on maintaining. We're past three years now since that last Bond, with still no next Bond having been cast, let alone a script or director being set. There's seemingly no way this new lull isn't at least five years – and potentially a lot longer. Potentially indefinitely!
And even in the best case scenario, say they're able to get a new Bond out there in late 2026, that would mean there would have been a stretch of only two James Bond films in a decade. That has never happened before – even after Brosnan took over, he ramped fast so that the 1989 - 1999 decade saw four Bond films. Again, the 2016 - 2026 would have two films, and that's in the best case scenario. Which seems unlikely. More likely, just one Bond film for the past decade.
Sometimes, some time away is good, of course. This is a lesson Star Wars should have learned earlier. I distinctly recall going to see Goldeneye on opening night in 1995, and I recall it because there was a real buzz around the entire theater: the first James Bond film in six years! But wait too long and well, you waited too long. That's perhaps the situation the Star Wars franchise (the films, at least) is in now. And Bond looks set to join them. As relics from the past.
But first and foremost, they still need to pick the next James Bond. It seemed like Aaron Taylor-Johnson was being floated, but that may be dead now with the performance of his latest Kraven the Hunter film. Certainly if they had to pick a Bond today, that would hurt him, so perhaps time helps and he's young enough to wait. But Broccoli clearly isn't going to make the pick until she thinks there'a a movie to actually be made:
It was also antithetical to Broccoli’s approach, which she has said mixes gut instinct with a healthy amount of risk—with no decision more critical than determining who will play Bond. Daniel Craig, for instance, was a relative unknown when he got the part, starting with 2006’s “Casino Royale.” The decision, she has said, is as serious as choosing one’s spouse.
So it's a bit chicken-and-egg here as well.
Broccoli and Wilson have begun showing the next generation the ropes. Wilson’s son, Gregg Wilson, helped to produce recent installments.
That passing of the torch has brought with it some disagreements over who the next James Bond should be. To associates, Gregg Wilson has appeared to be more sympathetic to calls for an update to Bond, a role that’s so far been filled by white male actors.
Some say a person of color in Bond’s tuxedo would better reflect the U.K.’s changing demography, and even nod to its ugly history of colonization. Take it a step further, others say, and cast a woman or a gay man.
Broccoli has told friends that she doesn’t have any qualms with casting a nonwhite or gay actor, but does believe Bond should always be played by a man, and should always be played by a Brit.
That still leaves a lot of possibilities...3
One more thing: When it comes to Bond villains, Broccoli seems less dogmatic.
In a world where the 1% have more power than ever, some have suggested, a stateless billionaire autocrat might seem the obvious choice for a Bond bad guy.
Broccoli’s response to such suggestions: Been there, done that. Recent villains include a wealthy banker to terrorist groups who weeps blood out of one eye (“Casino Royale,” 2006); a wealthy oil heiress (“The World Is Not Enough,” 1999); and a wealthy tycoon whose global media empire includes a satellite network (“Tomorrow Never Dies,” 1997). That last one has come up more recently when she is offered inspiration from the real world.
“Elon Musk?” she said to one friend. “I did that back in 1997.’”
M.G. Siegler
1 Unclear, but you can bet the asking price would be near the entire $6.5B Amazon paid! Again, they didn't buy MGM for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Actually, that would probably be sold too given the Broccoli/Fleming involvement there.
2 Entirely possible, of course, that this entire article and those talking to the WSJ for it are hoping it can help resolve the situation in some way...
3 With Taylor-Johnson seemingly on hold, I'm going back to my old bet of Richard Madden. Though I'm slightly worried that he will now age out of a "younger" Bond if they wait too long. This wait has basically killed the potential of Idris Elba (now 52), Tom Hardy (now 47), Luke Evans (now 45), Tom Hiddleston (now 43), maybe even Eddie Redmayne and Jamie Dornan (both now 42) and perhaps Henry Cavill (now 41).