› ›

Denis Villeneuve Announced as Bond 26 Director

1234568»

Comments

  • BMB007BMB007
    Posts: 650
    Under discussed possibility is that Broccoli simply was finished with these movies. She may have thought she did all she wanted to do with these, and couldn't find a new angle compelling to her.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 1:39pm Posts: 5,505
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Let's assume Barbara Broccoli wanted Denis Villeneuve to direct Bond 26. He was considered for Bond 25...
    Deadline website:

    Denis Villeneuve Spent Years Chasing His James Bond Dream, Saying Directing 007 Would Be “Pure Cinematic Joy”

    By Jake Kanter
    June 26, 2025 3:25am

    “I was raised with James Bond. I love James Bond movies. I would love to do a James Bond movie one day. Action is very cinematic,” he told Comingsoon.net in 2015. “I’m not someone that loves dialogue – I am someone that loves movement. Action, if it’s well done, can be very poetic and meaningful.”

    Two years later, Villeneuve admitted that he had held talks about directing Bond, but the timing was not right because he was ramping up work on Dune. “I had some contact and the thing is that I’m busy right,” he told The Playlist.

    ... so it's reasonable to assume Broccoli kept him in mind for Bond 26. Maybe he was her top choice.

    We all know what happened after NTTD. Broccoli couldn't come to an agreement with Amazon. Amazon effectively bought out Eon. Eon took the cash but lost creative control. But isn't Amazon hiring Villeneuve a big tactical blunder from Broccoli? If she wanted Villeneuve they why not compromise and stay on? Work with Villeneuve to make Bond 26. I accept she may have had to compromise but had she remained producer she'd have Villeneuve making her film. Assuming his vision for Bond 26 wasn't massively different to Broccoli's, it could have been a productive relationship? I guess so.

    Amazon got creative control and Villeneuve. They got what they wanted. Broccoli could have prevented that. She could or maybe should have said "I'll be prepared to compromise if you hire Villeneuve and his ideas for Bond 26 align with mine." That way she still retains some control.

    Maybe she jumped ship too early.

    I suspect what happened between Amazon and EON will be the sort of thing people will write entire books and articles about in the future. I suspect it’s not quite a clear cut case where one side ‘won’ over the other. It’s probably more a bittersweet compromise on both sides to make sure Bond could survive. And it involves ambitious, and quite ruthless people wanting to protect their own interests.

    There’ll probably be a lot of factors that contributed to EON’s decision. It seems like they had no real creative successor (save for Greg Wilson none of the other kids seemed to be involved at this point, and for whatever reason - which I reckon will come to light - Gregg seemingly wasn’t considered the right person to keep Bond going). I suspect to some extent the Broccolis didn’t have an adequate succession plan before Amazon acquired MGM. There’ll be factors like MGW’s retirement and Broccoli’s hesitancy to continue without him, which is understandable. I suspect we’ll also get an indication of when they made the decision to sell the creative rights, which could have been years in the making and perhaps even a long, drawn out series of negotiations and considerations until they decided to relinquish the creative rights. It’s interesting that Broccoli and MGW made some very specific claims about Bond’s creative direction publicly throughout 2023-2024. That could be seen as a sort of warning to Amazon to carry on their legacy - the need to reinvent Bond, how Bond should always be contemporary and get a cinematic release, the need for an actor with gravitas etc. And of course the WSJ article which had some very pointed things to say about Amazon (its release three months prior to the deal being finalised is certainly interesting, as well as its release after Salke publicly said they’d wait for EON, the implication being EON were the ones responsible for the hold up. Of course as we know Salke herself didn't last, and it's likely a contributing factor was her inability to create a good relationship with EON. A mini PR war makes sense in this context, although in hindsight/with the context in mind what Salke said publicly was probably crossing the line and very stupid of her, even if the WSJ article was airing dirty laundry).

    Perhaps from Amazon’s perspective BB and MGW were genuinely being unreasonable and unable to decide what they wanted for Bond’s future, halting the franchise and refusing to compromise. Even bringing some of this out into the public. From EON’s point of view, despite some friendly faces around, we know they thought many of these people didn’t understand Bond. Between a stubborn fight to protect their franchise and probably some internal uncertainties about EON's future, I can imagine none of this was as amicable as it could have been. It's not unreasonable to presume EON wanted to protect their character and personal legacy though.

    Ultimately, I think EON had more power in this negotiation than we might believe currently. Interestingly they never sold their actual share, so in that way it’s a massive win for them. As I said they needed reassurance that their franchise would be in safe hands, and they have a prior association with Pascal to the point she worked on some of the Craig films, and of course Heyman is a top producer. Sort of continuity choices. Who knows what other specifics of the deal was. The new producers have in turn gone for Villeneuve who Broccoli has supposedly considered for years. They even got an extra billion. But, at the end of the day, EON no longer control James Bond, and that's Amazon's victory.

    @007HallY, your post is very wise.

    Thank you, appreciate it.
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Under discussed possibility is that Broccoli simply was finished with these movies. She may have thought she did all she wanted to do with these, and couldn't find a new angle compelling to her.

    Obviously we don't know these people, but my suspicion is big decisions like this rarely come down to one single factor. And for what it's worth I do get the sense EON were forging ahead during very early stages - speaking with actors and potential directors etc - even if they may have been unsure of their future and were trying to negotiate a long term plan with Amazon.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 1:39pm Posts: 18,342
    007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Let's assume Barbara Broccoli wanted Denis Villeneuve to direct Bond 26. He was considered for Bond 25...
    Deadline website:

    Denis Villeneuve Spent Years Chasing His James Bond Dream, Saying Directing 007 Would Be “Pure Cinematic Joy”

    By Jake Kanter
    June 26, 2025 3:25am

    “I was raised with James Bond. I love James Bond movies. I would love to do a James Bond movie one day. Action is very cinematic,” he told Comingsoon.net in 2015. “I’m not someone that loves dialogue – I am someone that loves movement. Action, if it’s well done, can be very poetic and meaningful.”

    Two years later, Villeneuve admitted that he had held talks about directing Bond, but the timing was not right because he was ramping up work on Dune. “I had some contact and the thing is that I’m busy right,” he told The Playlist.

    ... so it's reasonable to assume Broccoli kept him in mind for Bond 26. Maybe he was her top choice.

    We all know what happened after NTTD. Broccoli couldn't come to an agreement with Amazon. Amazon effectively bought out Eon. Eon took the cash but lost creative control. But isn't Amazon hiring Villeneuve a big tactical blunder from Broccoli? If she wanted Villeneuve they why not compromise and stay on? Work with Villeneuve to make Bond 26. I accept she may have had to compromise but had she remained producer she'd have Villeneuve making her film. Assuming his vision for Bond 26 wasn't massively different to Broccoli's, it could have been a productive relationship? I guess so.

    Amazon got creative control and Villeneuve. They got what they wanted. Broccoli could have prevented that. She could or maybe should have said "I'll be prepared to compromise if you hire Villeneuve and his ideas for Bond 26 align with mine." That way she still retains some control.

    Maybe she jumped ship too early.

    I suspect what happened between Amazon and EON will be the sort of thing people will write entire books and articles about in the future. I suspect it’s not quite a clear cut case where one side ‘won’ over the other. It’s probably more a bittersweet compromise on both sides to make sure Bond could survive. And it involves ambitious, and quite ruthless people wanting to protect their own interests.

    There’ll probably be a lot of factors that contributed to EON’s decision. It seems like they had no real creative successor (save for Greg Wilson none of the other kids seemed to be involved at this point, and for whatever reason - which I reckon will come to light - Gregg seemingly wasn’t considered the right person to keep Bond going). I suspect to some extent the Broccolis didn’t have an adequate succession plan before Amazon acquired MGM. There’ll be factors like MGW’s retirement and Broccoli’s hesitancy to continue without him, which is understandable. I suspect we’ll also get an indication of when they made the decision to sell the creative rights, which could have been years in the making and perhaps even a long, drawn out series of negotiations and considerations until they decided to relinquish the creative rights. It’s interesting that Broccoli and MGW made some very specific claims about Bond’s creative direction publicly throughout 2023-2024. That could be seen as a sort of warning to Amazon to carry on their legacy - the need to reinvent Bond, how Bond should always be contemporary and get a cinematic release, the need for an actor with gravitas etc. And of course the WSJ article which had some very pointed things to say about Amazon (its release three months prior to the deal being finalised is certainly interesting, as well as its release after Salke publicly said they’d wait for EON, the implication being EON were the ones responsible for the hold up. Of course as we know Salke herself didn't last, and it's likely a contributing factor was her inability to create a good relationship with EON. A mini PR war makes sense in this context, although in hindsight/with the context in mind what Salke said publicly was probably crossing the line and very stupid of her, even if the WSJ article was airing dirty laundry).

    Perhaps from Amazon’s perspective BB and MGW were genuinely being unreasonable and unable to decide what they wanted for Bond’s future, halting the franchise and refusing to compromise. Even bringing some of this out into the public. From EON’s point of view, despite some friendly faces around, we know they thought many of these people didn’t understand Bond. Between a stubborn fight to protect their franchise and probably some internal uncertainties about EON's future, I can imagine none of this was as amicable as it could have been. It's not unreasonable to presume EON wanted to protect their character and personal legacy though.

    Ultimately, I think EON had more power in this negotiation than we might believe currently. Interestingly they never sold their actual share, so in that way it’s a massive win for them. As I said they needed reassurance that their franchise would be in safe hands, and they have a prior association with Pascal to the point she worked on some of the Craig films, and of course Heyman is a top producer. Sort of continuity choices. Who knows what other specifics of the deal was. The new producers have in turn gone for Villeneuve who Broccoli has supposedly considered for years. They even got an extra billion. But, at the end of the day, EON no longer control James Bond, and that's Amazon's victory.

    @007HallY, your post is very wise.

    Thank you, appreciate it.
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Under discussed possibility is that Broccoli simply was finished with these movies. She may have thought she did all she wanted to do with these, and couldn't find a new angle compelling to her.

    Obviously we don't know these people, but my suspicion is big decisions like this rarely come down to one single factor. And for what it's worth I do get the sense EON were forging ahead during very early stages - speaking with actors and potential directors etc - even if they may have been unsure of their future and were trying to negotiate a long term plan with Amazon.

    I guess that kind of is what they always did though: get stuck into the next one before there's a fully formed idea for it. In fact I think most big movies seem to go that way: go and make me a Star Wars movie, release on this date, you can work out what it'll be as you go.
    But maybe this time they just increasingly realised they didn't have a compelling vision for the next iteration of Bond. I tend to think it was probably quite an exhausting thing to think of as well: the Craig films were their ultimate vision of Bond really, and as much as lots of folk gripe about them, they were incredibly successful and took the series to new heights for 15 years. The thought of wiping all of that effort clean and starting the process all over again probably wasn't very enticing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,808
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Under discussed possibility is that Broccoli simply was finished with these movies. She may have thought she did all she wanted to do with these, and couldn't find a new angle compelling to her.

    NTTD definitely has a "do everything we ever could hope to do with Bond in this film" feel. I don't know that it was that conscious in 2019, however, Wilson's age was obvious back then.

    We can't know what she was thinking but her brother/business partner is elderly and maybe she wants to make her golden years her own and not feel like she has to forever manage what was originally someone else's dream, not hers.

    As someone who heads the third generation of a family business, I can understand that.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 1:57pm Posts: 5,505
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Let's assume Barbara Broccoli wanted Denis Villeneuve to direct Bond 26. He was considered for Bond 25...
    Deadline website:

    Denis Villeneuve Spent Years Chasing His James Bond Dream, Saying Directing 007 Would Be “Pure Cinematic Joy”

    By Jake Kanter
    June 26, 2025 3:25am

    “I was raised with James Bond. I love James Bond movies. I would love to do a James Bond movie one day. Action is very cinematic,” he told Comingsoon.net in 2015. “I’m not someone that loves dialogue – I am someone that loves movement. Action, if it’s well done, can be very poetic and meaningful.”

    Two years later, Villeneuve admitted that he had held talks about directing Bond, but the timing was not right because he was ramping up work on Dune. “I had some contact and the thing is that I’m busy right,” he told The Playlist.

    ... so it's reasonable to assume Broccoli kept him in mind for Bond 26. Maybe he was her top choice.

    We all know what happened after NTTD. Broccoli couldn't come to an agreement with Amazon. Amazon effectively bought out Eon. Eon took the cash but lost creative control. But isn't Amazon hiring Villeneuve a big tactical blunder from Broccoli? If she wanted Villeneuve they why not compromise and stay on? Work with Villeneuve to make Bond 26. I accept she may have had to compromise but had she remained producer she'd have Villeneuve making her film. Assuming his vision for Bond 26 wasn't massively different to Broccoli's, it could have been a productive relationship? I guess so.

    Amazon got creative control and Villeneuve. They got what they wanted. Broccoli could have prevented that. She could or maybe should have said "I'll be prepared to compromise if you hire Villeneuve and his ideas for Bond 26 align with mine." That way she still retains some control.

    Maybe she jumped ship too early.

    I suspect what happened between Amazon and EON will be the sort of thing people will write entire books and articles about in the future. I suspect it’s not quite a clear cut case where one side ‘won’ over the other. It’s probably more a bittersweet compromise on both sides to make sure Bond could survive. And it involves ambitious, and quite ruthless people wanting to protect their own interests.

    There’ll probably be a lot of factors that contributed to EON’s decision. It seems like they had no real creative successor (save for Greg Wilson none of the other kids seemed to be involved at this point, and for whatever reason - which I reckon will come to light - Gregg seemingly wasn’t considered the right person to keep Bond going). I suspect to some extent the Broccolis didn’t have an adequate succession plan before Amazon acquired MGM. There’ll be factors like MGW’s retirement and Broccoli’s hesitancy to continue without him, which is understandable. I suspect we’ll also get an indication of when they made the decision to sell the creative rights, which could have been years in the making and perhaps even a long, drawn out series of negotiations and considerations until they decided to relinquish the creative rights. It’s interesting that Broccoli and MGW made some very specific claims about Bond’s creative direction publicly throughout 2023-2024. That could be seen as a sort of warning to Amazon to carry on their legacy - the need to reinvent Bond, how Bond should always be contemporary and get a cinematic release, the need for an actor with gravitas etc. And of course the WSJ article which had some very pointed things to say about Amazon (its release three months prior to the deal being finalised is certainly interesting, as well as its release after Salke publicly said they’d wait for EON, the implication being EON were the ones responsible for the hold up. Of course as we know Salke herself didn't last, and it's likely a contributing factor was her inability to create a good relationship with EON. A mini PR war makes sense in this context, although in hindsight/with the context in mind what Salke said publicly was probably crossing the line and very stupid of her, even if the WSJ article was airing dirty laundry).

    Perhaps from Amazon’s perspective BB and MGW were genuinely being unreasonable and unable to decide what they wanted for Bond’s future, halting the franchise and refusing to compromise. Even bringing some of this out into the public. From EON’s point of view, despite some friendly faces around, we know they thought many of these people didn’t understand Bond. Between a stubborn fight to protect their franchise and probably some internal uncertainties about EON's future, I can imagine none of this was as amicable as it could have been. It's not unreasonable to presume EON wanted to protect their character and personal legacy though.

    Ultimately, I think EON had more power in this negotiation than we might believe currently. Interestingly they never sold their actual share, so in that way it’s a massive win for them. As I said they needed reassurance that their franchise would be in safe hands, and they have a prior association with Pascal to the point she worked on some of the Craig films, and of course Heyman is a top producer. Sort of continuity choices. Who knows what other specifics of the deal was. The new producers have in turn gone for Villeneuve who Broccoli has supposedly considered for years. They even got an extra billion. But, at the end of the day, EON no longer control James Bond, and that's Amazon's victory.

    @007HallY, your post is very wise.

    Thank you, appreciate it.
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Under discussed possibility is that Broccoli simply was finished with these movies. She may have thought she did all she wanted to do with these, and couldn't find a new angle compelling to her.

    Obviously we don't know these people, but my suspicion is big decisions like this rarely come down to one single factor. And for what it's worth I do get the sense EON were forging ahead during very early stages - speaking with actors and potential directors etc - even if they may have been unsure of their future and were trying to negotiate a long term plan with Amazon.

    I guess that kind of is what they always did though: get stuck into the next one before there's a fully formed idea for it. In fact I think most big movies seem to go that way: go and make me a Star Wars movie, release on this date, you can work out what it'll be as you go.
    But maybe this time they just increasingly realised they didn't have a compelling vision for the next iteration of Bond. I tend to think it was probably quite an exhausting thing to think of as well: the Craig films were their ultimate vision of Bond really, and as much as lots of folk gripe about them, they were incredibly successful and took the series to new heights for 15 years. The thought of wiping all of that effort clean and starting the process all over again probably wasn't very enticing.

    My guess is it was a case of timing and the need to think about Bond's future. It just happened to come at this point and in the context of Amazon acquiring MGM. Broccoli's in her 60s so could keep going for a while, but Wilson's pushing 80 and was seemingly planning his retirement at this point. Without a family member who can competently handle the franchise in the long run, or some sort of replacement who would acquire EON (and in practice I think that's unlikely) there's nowhere else Bond could go but Amazon.

    I can imagine the thought of starting a new era without the long term creative partner who'd helped make the previous films a success wasn't a positive thought for Broccoli either, especially while having to navigate the internal issues with Amazon. Even if they hired an incredibly competent, successful director like Villeneuve to take a lead role in development, not having a unified EON wouldn't have been good for the franchise in the long run. And a new era is the best time for a new team to come on, as they'll conceivably stick around and see it play out, so creatively it makes sense. I'm sure it was a difficult decision, but to some extent I suspect it was something that was always going to happen, even if later. And they seemingly got a good deal out of it for themselves and hopefully for Bond's future.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,308
    Stamper wrote: »
    A fully grown man doesn't attract the Gen Z (unless he is vilain).
    The John Wick and Fast and Furious movies with "older men" are doing fine amongst Gen Z. But yes, it would be a smart choice to get a younger Bond, aged 28-35. For me it's not the age, though, but if I find him believable as Bond. Chalamet, Tom Holland or many of the other names floating around? I don't see it. Taron Egerton clearly gets my vote so far, after having watched 'Black Bird' and now this new show on Apple TV, "Smoke." But that is just me.

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,726
    I'm just preparing myself for a majestic Bond film from Villeneuve.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,651
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,342
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    A fully grown man doesn't attract the Gen Z (unless he is vilain).
    The John Wick and Fast and Furious movies with "older men" are doing fine amongst Gen Z. But yes, it would be a smart choice to get a younger Bond, aged 28-35. For me it's not the age, though, but if I find him believable as Bond.

    Yeah if they went for an actor in his mid-late 20s I don't think I'd have an issue with it to be honest. Just depends how he plays it and where the makers want to take it.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited 3:00pm Posts: 12,536
    Oh, I just thought of somebody! Sorry I did not think of him earlier.
    Corey Mylchreest - YES.
    I only know him from Queen Charlotte (Netflix, part of Bridgerton family).
    He's 27, so a little young.

    Hear me out: I have watched several series of Bridgerton and find it at times fun, at times annoying and/or stupid. So I'm not a big fan of it. BUT ... I loved the limited spin-off Queen Charlotte. Perfect cast and smart writing.
    Corey was really excellent as King George III.

    He has great looks, a natural charm. I am putting him out here even though I've never seen him mentioned as a potential Bond.

    I do not know how to post a photo here. See if I can give you a link ... a few photos on this page ... https://esquire.com/uk/style/fashion/a63810713/corey-mylchreest-2025-interview-bafta/

    Please let me know if the link works (it does not for me ...)

    SORRY - I MEANT TO POST IN BOND ACTOR THREAD!
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited 2:58pm Posts: 1,998
    Those reported details above are likely just informed guesses, as they look to me. Has any Bond director ever had final cut? Besides the ones who were editors lol
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,536
    Oh I am pretty sure, no. EON had final say, I think.
  • BMB007BMB007
    edited 4:53pm Posts: 650
    Few directors on big brand name movies, in general, have final cut. I know Abrams did on "The Rise of Skywalker" (didn't on "The Force Awakens"). Nolan may have on "The Dark Knight Rises". None of the Marvel directors, not even Coogler, do (though wonder if that will change for "Black Panther 3").

    Todd Phillips may have on "Joker Folie à Deux" but that's not really comparable due to circumstances. Curious who does on the new "Superman" movie given that Gunn is also a studio executive.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,651
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Those reported details above are likely just informed guesses, as they look to me. Has any Bond director ever had final cut? Besides the ones who were editors lol

    FWIW Justin Kroll from Deadline does confirm these tidbits here:

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,342
    Variety says Villeneuve won't have final cut.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,598
    mtm wrote: »
    Variety says Villeneuve won't have final cut.

    Not a bad thing but I’m somebody who thought both Dune movies were a tad bit too long - as enjoyable as they were.
  • BMB007BMB007
    Posts: 650
    The choice of actor will likely be made via a combination of him, Pascal, Heyman, and other Amazon executives.

    Perhaps that is a film idea — "Conclave" except they are choosing the next Bond actor.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 640
    Here's a question I honestly don't know the answer to, but maybe someone here might:

    Has any Bond director had final cut?

    I like Villeneuve's movies a lot, particularly BR 2049. Looking forward to what he does with Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,742
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Has any Bond director had final cut?

    Never. It’s always been a producer’s show, letting filmmakers come in to do their thing but always under the terms of the producers. Nothing went by Harry, Cubby, Michael, and Barbara. Terence Young famously didn’t bother sticking around for post production for THUNDERBALL.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,308
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Has any Bond director had final cut?
    Allegedly that is what kept Nolan out.

    The dealbreaker though was final cut. Barbara Broccoli has given none of her directors final cut on a James Bond film, and Christopher Nolan was no exception. Nolan is one of the few high profile filmmakers though who does get final cut on his pictures, and even though it’s not clear if the conversation got very far, the final cut issue was the breaking point.

    https://filmstories.co.uk/news/james-bond-christopher-nolan-expressed-interest-after-tenet-but-wouldnt-have-got-final-cut/
  • FrankXavierFrankXavier
    Posts: 720
    Not sure why the final cut thing is being reported as "news" if its standard procedure for Bond.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 2,113
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Has any Bond director had final cut?

    I think the closest was Mendes in Skyfall
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,742
    SKYFALL was one of those rare times where everyone seemed to be on the same page of what the film needed to be and had each other’s backs. SPECTRE is where it got messy because Mendes wanted to do a throwback to Connery/Moore type of film but Eon wanted to replicate the success of SKYFALL too, which is why they couldn’t nail the script. Too many ideas at odds.
Sign In or Register to comment.