It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Thank you, appreciate it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
FWIW Justin Kroll from Deadline does confirm these tidbits here:
Not a bad thing but I’m somebody who thought both Dune movies were a tad bit too long - as enjoyable as they were.
Perhaps that is a film idea — "Conclave" except they are choosing the next Bond actor.
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.
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.
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/
I think the closest was Mendes in Skyfall
Right on the money
I don't buy all these other Machiavellian / Game of Thrones theorys
She and Mr Wilson devoted much of their lives to Bond and now want to move on
Why don't we let them?
I’m sure many fans wish she had come to this decision as soon as NTTD was out, but it’s hard to let go of something you thought of as your family’s legacy. When the news broke of Amazon taking over creative control it seemed like the worst was in store. But as things have developed, with the people having joined on, it seems to be the case that Broccoli made sure that the handoff would go to people who would honor her family’s legacy. At least that’s how it seems to me for now. We’ll only know once we actually see the film.
____________________________
1) The next Bond will be gritty, dark, and too serious for sure.
Will it, though? Bond 26 might offer a gritty take, but it remains uncertain. Denis Villeneuve has a track record of creating both original and franchise films, leaning towards seriousness in his approach. Blade Runner and Dune were notably serious, but that tone was consistent with both Blade Runner (1982) and Frank Herbert's Dune.
Now attached to a franchise with diverse tones and seriousness levels, Villeneuve enjoys more creative freedom, at least in principle. As a highly professional director, I'm sure he's capable of delivering another Goldfinger or Skyfall, depending on the project's scope.
Consider Spielberg, whose career spanned adventure, sci-fi, comedy, and horror before surprising audiences with the dramatic and emotionally weighty Schindler's List. Talented filmmakers can pivot masterfully. Should Villeneuve be tasked with a modern Thunderball, he's poised to deliver.
2) Timothy Chalamet will be Bond.
Ridiculous. Villeneuve has worked with Chalamet twice—really just once, since Chalamet played the same character in both films. So what? Did Spielberg cast Dreyfuss as Indiana Jones, Ford as Ian Malcolm, or Cruise as Lincoln? It’s a strange conclusion to think that just because a director has worked with an actor a few times (being generous here), he’s somehow obligated to cast that actor in everything.
3) Denis Villeneuve will, actually, direct Bond 26.
Frankly, I hope so. But let’s not forget that “creative differences” and “scheduling conflicts” are common too. Boyle walked away—for reasons. We can’t be certain Villeneuve will stay on board. I hope he does, but part of me is prepared for the possibility that he won’t.
_______________________________
In conclusion, I'm glad we've got a few interesting discussions going again, but I wish some predictions were made with a little bit more caution. The honest truth is that no one here can guess what the first non-EON Bond in years, directed by Denis Villeneuve, will look like.
This.
I’ll add that maybe we should acknowledge, with praise, that Broccoli and Wilson didn’t just hold the series in limbo out of spite or ego or in a never ending seesaw of leverage and lawsuits. Obviously, it was in their best interest to resolve this. Amazon would have most likely litigated the rights. That could have lasted years and cost millions. The Broccoli’s are wealthier than an overwhelming majority of the planet, but then there are the oligarchs, like Bezos. They would have hung in there though, and maybe even won, but Cubby’s legacy was at risk either way.
Broccoli has said that Cubby told her not to let temporary people make permanent decisions. Amazon isn’t going anywhere. She and Wilson secured their legacy as best they could, as well as the well-deserved bag. And look at us now. On the eve of a hotly-anticipated multimedia relaunch that may give us an artistically impactful blockbuster film. Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas would be so lucky.
The day MGM sold to Amazon was the beginning of the end. We just didn't know it at the time.
True, remember what the articles have been sharing about the Michael G. Wilson being excluded and not invited into the meetings? And Bezos telling "to get rid of" Barbara Broccoli? Jeff Bezos and Amazon is powerful than EON, they're billions, while the latter is just a hundred millions.
With those news that I'm starting to learn just now, I've realized that after all, James Bond is a business thing, it could be handled by anyone for money, and for me, that's a sad fact, because Bond for me is more than just an IP, more than a Golden Goose laying Golden Eggs, he's an icon people came to love, but the reality is not like that, James Bond is a money making machine where those who manage it would earn big money.
EON for sure turned Bond into a family business, Bond made them rich, it's business, if Amazon doesn't looked at and treat Bond as business, then the partnership between Amazon and EON would've been more positive, but the reality is far from that, it's all about business, even by the means of Bezos kicking out Barbara and Michael out of the James Bond filmmaking circle.
Yes Bond is an icon, but like Star Wars, successors will show that only the people in charge had any idea of how make everything work. I think EON will laugh at the crash all the way to the bank.
Do not look further than the game: this is the template of what is coming. Just using some gadgets and some shooting in an exotic location doesn't make Bond. The makers of the game don't get it, and the makers of the film won't either.
I think all in all, Villeneuve is probably good news because he will fight for it to feel like Bond, but there are too many fingers in the pie already.