EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Steven Knight to Write)

1127128129131133

Comments

  • edited September 23 Posts: 5,979
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I can easily imagine an original plan where EON were there in more of an advisory position (think EON consulting for the new First Light game) with the intention of passing Bond creatively onto producers at Amazon in the way they eventually did. Obviously there were too many creative disputes, but it's interesting that Amazon have gone the route they have done subsequently.

    That's a really interesting thought, yeah; that may well have been the situation that WSJ was reporting on without knowing it.

    And as has been commented on before, there's even something about Heyman and Pascal which have the whiff of being Broccoli-approved, or suggested, appointees. And that may well have smoothed the troubles the WSJ article reported on.

    It would make sense. I mean, as you pointed out there was clearly some sort of transition going on around this time anyway. And for much of 2022-23 MGW and BB seem to make use of interviews and awards to voice pretty clear creative stuff about the cinematic James Bond (ie. the ideal age of a new actor, the need for these films to be contemporary/cinematic releases, that for better or for worse they are 'custodians of the franchise' etc). It can almost be seen as a sort of public campaign for the future direction of Bond.

    Again, I think it'll be a while before the background of this stuff comes out. Possibly in a book or in-depth podcast. But it brings a new perspective to what these people said publicly. Incidentally I doubt Amazon or EON are going to be commenting on it in-depth anytime soon (it may well be somewhat embarrassing for Amazon).
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 23 Posts: 3,356
    Mallory wrote: »
    Not to retread well discussed ground, but I do believe there are a number of reasons that have all contributed (not equally) to the buyout by Amazon:

    - MGM wanting to retire and Barbara either wanting to move on, or not find a producing partner outside of the family (clearly, they didnt think Gregg was up to the task of taking over from MGW, or perhaps he didnt want to. All public comments suggest the former though - he was being placed to take over, but when push came to shove, they didnt want to do it for whatever reason).
    - Being at a creative impass following NTTD and killing off James Bond, and struggling to find a way forward. When BB said she couldnt imagine anyone other than DC being Bond... a part of me thinks thats not just marketing guff but a genuine thought that has impacted the ability to move on.
    - Failing to agree with Amazon a way forward, given their desire to exploit everything they have for Prime content.
    - A shift in the power dynamics with MGM. Previously EoN held the cards - MGM needed Bond to support the wider studio. Amazon is in no such place.
    - A changing cinema landscape (Streaming technology has had a huge impact, and Covid accelerated that).

    All those things combined, when you're offered a billion dollars to move on and still retain a stake in any future profits (lets hope there are some)...
    Yes, this all sounds plausible to me - even more so if, as others have said, there were actually indications in the background that EON themselves had wanted to move on for quite some time. It also sounds plausible that, as MTM says, the 'exit' deal allowed BB to at least influence the selection of the people that Amazon put in place to oversee what happens next.
  • Posts: 652
    It's smoke and not fire, but Amazon hiring Pascal (who Broccoli respected) and Villeneuve (who Broccoli tried to hire before) is certainly a great deal of smoke that there is more going on than meets the eye!
  • edited September 24 Posts: 2,679
    I wonder if Broccoli has a sort of “unofficial” say in the matter of casting Bond. Maybe some suggestions she’s thought of - if she truly did influence the hiring of Pascal, Heyman, and Villeneuve then it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary to suggest that she play a small role in casting even if she may not get final say.
  • Posts: 2,397
    BMB007 wrote: »
    It's smoke and not fire, but Amazon hiring Pascal (who Broccoli respected) and Villeneuve (who Broccoli tried to hire before) is certainly a great deal of smoke that there is more going on than meets the eye!

    For a second I thought they had hired Pedro Pascal to play Bond. :D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,198
    Is it just me or is Stephen Knight a lot more high profile writer than Bond is used to? It seems like his statements in the press carry about as much weight as Villeneuve in terms of coverage. I am hoping the fact that he will get to overhaul the P+W monopoly, plus Amazon giving access to unlimited funds could make this the grandest and most fresh feeling film since Goldeneye.
  • Posts: 2,380
    Is it just me or is Stephen Knight a lot more high profile writer than Bond is used to? It seems like his statements in the press carry about as much weight as Villeneuve in terms of coverage. I am hoping the fact that he will get to overhaul the P+W monopoly, plus Amazon giving access to unlimited funds could make this the grandest and most fresh feeling film since Goldeneye.

    I don't think he's any more higher profile than say Phoebe Waller Bridge, or a John Logan or Paul Haggis. Knight may have a little more general public awareness through Peaky Blinder's though. And he is used to being interviewed more than the typical screenwriter.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,198
    Mallory wrote: »
    Is it just me or is Stephen Knight a lot more high profile writer than Bond is used to? It seems like his statements in the press carry about as much weight as Villeneuve in terms of coverage. I am hoping the fact that he will get to overhaul the P+W monopoly, plus Amazon giving access to unlimited funds could make this the grandest and most fresh feeling film since Goldeneye.

    I don't think he's any more higher profile than say Phoebe Waller Bridge, or a John Logan or Paul Haggis. Knight may have a little more general public awareness through Peaky Blinder's though. And he is used to being interviewed more than the typical screenwriter.

    Perhaps I should say more "populist" writer. He seems to be able to grab headlines with sound bites Bond fans want to hear.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 612
    Mallory wrote: »
    Is it just me or is Stephen Knight a lot more high profile writer than Bond is used to? It seems like his statements in the press carry about as much weight as Villeneuve in terms of coverage. I am hoping the fact that he will get to overhaul the P+W monopoly, plus Amazon giving access to unlimited funds could make this the grandest and most fresh feeling film since Goldeneye.

    I don't think he's any more higher profile than say Phoebe Waller Bridge, or a John Logan or Paul Haggis. Knight may have a little more general public awareness through Peaky Blinder's though. And he is used to being interviewed more than the typical screenwriter.

    Did Haggis write CR script?
  • redherringredherring Netherlands
    Posts: 22
    I have faith in those on the creative side. Executives may not understand Bond but storytellers like Villeneuve who grew up with the myth of James Bond do. Talented nerds (in the best possible sense) who believe in old world notions of charisma, adventure and FUN rather than some gun toting lunkhead or a morose, self flagellating anti-hero. If the wrong people are put into place, or if the right people are barred from making the right decisions, the franchise will come crumbling down and it's back to the drawing board again. Frankly I see the dedicated Bond fans on this forum as the long term custodians.

    I hope IP like Day of the Jackal (s02) gets better development so we'll have something to content ourselves with in the meantime.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 2,380
    Ultimately it is in Amazon's interest to get this film right. For it to land well, be well received and commercially successful. Especially as the spotlight is on them, and not in a good way.

    I am sure if they wanted to they could've contracted producers and directors who were more available, and fast tracked it through to have a film out in 2026, but the risk of doing that and it failing are too high. They've paid over $1bn for the rights to the series and the only way they get that back is to successfully put out well received and profitable films.

    The appointment of Pascal and Heyman was a good move. Pascal has history with Bond, working studio side on CR to Spectre, and working on established big budget IP films like Spider-Man. Heyman similarly has huge experience in successfully adapting and launching British book based series (see Harry Potter and Paddington), so combining the two is astute.

    Villeneuve and Knight similarly are good choices given their previous pedigree.

    They're successful. And continuing to work. And so when Bond came along, if Amazon want people with proven track records to make it for them, they have to wait. And that's what they've decided to do.

    Right choice so far, I feel.
  • Posts: 652
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Did Haggis write CR script?

    From what I've read about the making of the film, the final shooting script is his work.

    He also wrote at least one draft of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, turning it in immediately before the WGA strike in 2007.
  • Posts: 2,380
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Did Haggis write CR script?

    From what I've read about the making of the film, the final shooting script is his work.

    He also wrote at least one draft of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, turning it in immediately before the WGA strike in 2007.

    Martin Campbell wanted a fresh pair of eyes on the script written by Purvis & Wade, and so brought on Haggis. He did a couple of passes over the script as well as making some changes to the third act - such as bringing Vesper into the sinking house.

    The script is a little odd in that Bond is reffered to both as just 'Bond' and then later on, 'James'.

    https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Casino-Royale.pdf

    My suspicion is where he is 'James' - that's Haggis' work.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 2,397
    Some news?

    Denis Villeneuve To Start Casting For An “Unknown” Brit Actor For ‘Bond 26’ When He Completes ‘Dune: Part Three’

    https://deadline.com/2025/09/james-bond-cast-unknown-british-actor-denis-villeneuve-dune-1236554375/
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,198
    Deadline states that Bond 26 is targeting a November 2028 release, which is perhaps why we haven't heard much in recent weeks. Looks like development will be slow until Villeneuve is ready to commit himself fully. On the bright side, that means that the script for this movie will likely be the most polished and fine-tuned of any film in the series. We're certainly breaking new ground with this one.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 5,979
    Depends on what they mean by unknown. Honestly, some 30 year old who'd only ever done an advert or a few plays/tv parts would worry me for Bond (you might get gold, and it does happen, but it's quite rare. Just depends, and it may well be a case in practice that the actor is a bit more established than the description lets on. Personally I think a Connery or Craig character actor is best, but whatever will be will be). Not sure I personally like the idea of going back to Bond's navy days either, but I don't mind starting again at a CR type point.

    Who knows one way or the other.
  • Posts: 2,380
    I think the article just confirms what most of us have been discussing as most likely for a while now. Good that it's not being fast tracked or rushed.

    The idea of doing a Bond in the navy before his 00 recruitment is interesting, given First Light is doing that in the video game space. I guess it depends on how much of the film that will take up. I could see a scenario whereby the PTS is set in the past and shows this, and then we time jump to the present and have a more seasoned Bond (a bit like how the PTS of Goldeneye is handled).
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited September 24 Posts: 612
    007HallY wrote: »
    Depends on what they mean by unknown. Honestly, some 30 year old who'd only ever done an advert or a few plays/tv parts would worry me for Bond (you might get gold, and it does happen, but it's quite rare. Just depends, and it may well be a case in practice that the actor is a bit more established than the description lets on. Personally I think a Connery or Craig character actor is best, but whatever will be will be). Not sure I personally like the idea of going back to Bond's navy days either, but I don't mind starting again at a CR type point.

    Who knows one way or the other.

    I was asking the same: what they mean by unknown? Fresh face was what they used too.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 2,380
    I would assume they would want someone who has not been a leading man in any major blockbuster or existing IP film. A bit like how Craig had never been the lead in a blockbuster or major studio film prior to CR. Established, but on the cusp of being the lead - and Bond being that step up into it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 24 Posts: 9,198
    Villeneuve won't finish Dune 3 until 2026, meaning we won't see a Bond announced until 2027, and then a film released late 2028.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,156
    Yeah I think the stuff about an unknown, or even a Brit really, is a bit meaningless: if they find the right guy and he doesn't 100% match up to those criteria, I don't think they're going to boot him. Brosnan wasn't a Brit after all. Otherwise there's a lot in there which sounds like guesswork: younger Bond, Royal Navy yadda yadda. Might well turn out that's what the film is, but we could all guess it might be that, it doesn't take much of a detective to write those thoughts down.

    The thing that interests me a bit more, if the article isn't out of whack, is that the process doesn't begin until Villeneuve is available. So the producers aren't presenting him with an actor, this is his movie and we won't know until then. I'm sure they're gathering a huge database in the meantime, but it does feel the right way to do it. I guess it's pretty much stand down until then.
    (IF the article is right of course!)
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,806
    Time to hit the 1960 Sean Connery cloning factory.

    In all seriousness, a PTS showing Bond in a royal navy uniform would be cool. Fast forward to a Section Chief Bond having to earn his 00 status.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,198
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I think the stuff about an unknown, or even a Brit really, is a bit meaningless: if they find the right guy and he doesn't 100% match up to those criteria, I don't think they're going to boot him. Brosnan wasn't a Brit after all. Otherwise there's a lot in there which sounds like guesswork: younger Bond, Royal Navy yadda yadda. Might well turn out that's what the film is, but we could all guess it might be that, it doesn't take much of a detective to write those thoughts down.

    The thing that interests me a bit more, if the article isn't out of whack, is that the process doesn't begin until Villeneuve is available. So the producers aren't presenting him with an actor, this is his movie and we won't know until then. I'm sure they're gathering a huge database in the meantime, but it does feel the right way to do it. I guess it's pretty much stand down until then.
    (IF the article is right of course!)

    It's Deadline, they are quite reliable.

    This script is going to be impeccable by the time they get to shooting.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 612
    Mallory wrote: »
    I would assume they would want someone who has not been a leading man in any major blockbuster or existing IP film. A bit like how Craig had never been the lead in a blockbuster or major studio film prior to CR. Established, but on the cusp of being the lead - and Bond being that step up into it.

    Bond makes actor a star.
  • Posts: 2,397
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Depends on what they mean by unknown. Honestly, some 30 year old who'd only ever done an advert or a few plays/tv parts would worry me for Bond (you might get gold, and it does happen, but it's quite rare. Just depends, and it may well be a case in practice that the actor is a bit more established than the description lets on. Personally I think a Connery or Craig character actor is best, but whatever will be will be). Not sure I personally like the idea of going back to Bond's navy days either, but I don't mind starting again at a CR type point.

    Who knows one way or the other.

    I was asking the same: what they mean by unknown? Fresh face was what they used too.

    I guess they mean people like Elordi are out.

    Until they change their minds again.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,198
    I don't know why we need to see Bond earning his 00 status, or why it should be considered a necessary step to introducing a new actor. Dalton and Brosnan worked just fine as already competent and experienced agents.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 5,979
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    I would assume they would want someone who has not been a leading man in any major blockbuster or existing IP film. A bit like how Craig had never been the lead in a blockbuster or major studio film prior to CR. Established, but on the cusp of being the lead - and Bond being that step up into it.

    Bond makes actor a star.

    No, the actor is the star who makes their version of Bond ;) They don't have to be mega famous beforehand, but they have to have that movie star potential. I don't think we can have another Lazenby.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I think the stuff about an unknown, or even a Brit really, is a bit meaningless: if they find the right guy and he doesn't 100% match up to those criteria, I don't think they're going to boot him. Brosnan wasn't a Brit after all. Otherwise there's a lot in there which sounds like guesswork: younger Bond, Royal Navy yadda yadda. Might well turn out that's what the film is, but we could all guess it might be that, it doesn't take much of a detective to write those thoughts down.

    The thing that interests me a bit more, if the article isn't out of whack, is that the process doesn't begin until Villeneuve is available. So the producers aren't presenting him with an actor, this is his movie and we won't know until then. I'm sure they're gathering a huge database in the meantime, but it does feel the right way to do it. I guess it's pretty much stand down until then.
    (IF the article is right of course!)

    It's Deadline, they are quite reliable.

    This script is going to be impeccable by the time they get to shooting.

    I think the issue is its early days. Seemingly the first draft hasn't even been completed yet! As hinted we might get a PTS during Bond's navy days and then fast forward to him as a 00, or it could be a more straightforward 'Bond attains his 00 status' thing. It could even develop into something different further down the line. Same for casting. We might get a CR situation where younger, lesser knows are tested, and they go for someone a bit older and more established (but not an A-Lister/connected with another franchise). It just depends.
    I don't know why we need to see Bond earning his 00 status, or why it should be considered a necessary step to introducing a new actor. Dalton and Brosnan worked just fine as already competent and experienced agents.

    I kinda agree. I prefer Bond to be more established (even First Light seemingly has him as a competent, but young operative, and it fills this gap somewhat). Bond's navy days don't interest me, but I don't necessarily mind seeing Bond in his early years as an MI6 agent/00 (we sort of get that with the GE PTS), and it's a natural route to go down.

    As I said we'll see what this becomes.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 2,380
    I don't know why we need to see Bond earning his 00 status, or why it should be considered a necessary step to introducing a new actor. Dalton and Brosnan worked just fine as already competent and experienced agents.

    They will want to make it abundantly clear to a general audience that this is a completely new Bond, new timeline, and draw a line under the "death" of 007 and move on. This is a way of achieving that.

    Dalton and Brosnan weren't having to deal with the on screen death of the previous actor's Bond, and were made at a time where audiences didnt really value "continuity" in the films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,198
    007HallY wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    I would assume they would want someone who has not been a leading man in any major blockbuster or existing IP film. A bit like how Craig had never been the lead in a blockbuster or major studio film prior to CR. Established, but on the cusp of being the lead - and Bond being that step up into it.

    Bond makes actor a star.

    No, the actor is the star who makes their version of Bond ;) They don't have to be mega famous beforehand, but they have to have that movie star potential. I don't think we can have another Lazenby.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I think the stuff about an unknown, or even a Brit really, is a bit meaningless: if they find the right guy and he doesn't 100% match up to those criteria, I don't think they're going to boot him. Brosnan wasn't a Brit after all. Otherwise there's a lot in there which sounds like guesswork: younger Bond, Royal Navy yadda yadda. Might well turn out that's what the film is, but we could all guess it might be that, it doesn't take much of a detective to write those thoughts down.

    The thing that interests me a bit more, if the article isn't out of whack, is that the process doesn't begin until Villeneuve is available. So the producers aren't presenting him with an actor, this is his movie and we won't know until then. I'm sure they're gathering a huge database in the meantime, but it does feel the right way to do it. I guess it's pretty much stand down until then.
    (IF the article is right of course!)

    It's Deadline, they are quite reliable.

    This script is going to be impeccable by the time they get to shooting.

    I think the issue is its early days. Seemingly the first draft hasn't even been completed yet! As hinted we might get a PTS during Bond's navy days and then fast forward to him as a 00, or it could be a more straightforward 'Bond attains his 00 status' thing. It could even develop into something different further down the line. Same for casting. We might get a CR situation where younger, lesser knows are tested, and they go for someone a bit older and more established (but not an A-Lister/connected with another franchise). It just depends.

    It was never realistic that Villeneuve would come off Dune and smash out a Bond film in a year! It was always going to take a decent amount of time. I guess 2 years from Dune Part 3 is about right, so looking like November/December 2028.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 5,979
    007HallY wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    I would assume they would want someone who has not been a leading man in any major blockbuster or existing IP film. A bit like how Craig had never been the lead in a blockbuster or major studio film prior to CR. Established, but on the cusp of being the lead - and Bond being that step up into it.

    Bond makes actor a star.

    No, the actor is the star who makes their version of Bond ;) They don't have to be mega famous beforehand, but they have to have that movie star potential. I don't think we can have another Lazenby.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I think the stuff about an unknown, or even a Brit really, is a bit meaningless: if they find the right guy and he doesn't 100% match up to those criteria, I don't think they're going to boot him. Brosnan wasn't a Brit after all. Otherwise there's a lot in there which sounds like guesswork: younger Bond, Royal Navy yadda yadda. Might well turn out that's what the film is, but we could all guess it might be that, it doesn't take much of a detective to write those thoughts down.

    The thing that interests me a bit more, if the article isn't out of whack, is that the process doesn't begin until Villeneuve is available. So the producers aren't presenting him with an actor, this is his movie and we won't know until then. I'm sure they're gathering a huge database in the meantime, but it does feel the right way to do it. I guess it's pretty much stand down until then.
    (IF the article is right of course!)

    It's Deadline, they are quite reliable.

    This script is going to be impeccable by the time they get to shooting.

    I think the issue is its early days. Seemingly the first draft hasn't even been completed yet! As hinted we might get a PTS during Bond's navy days and then fast forward to him as a 00, or it could be a more straightforward 'Bond attains his 00 status' thing. It could even develop into something different further down the line. Same for casting. We might get a CR situation where younger, lesser knows are tested, and they go for someone a bit older and more established (but not an A-Lister/connected with another franchise). It just depends.

    It was never realistic that Villeneuve would come off Dune and smash out a Bond film in a year! It was always going to take a decent amount of time. I guess 2 years from Dune Part 3 is about right, so looking like November/December 2028.

    Yes. Although that's basically what the likes of Deadline have been saying, so it's not a secret. No release date yet either.

    But yeah, I think as much as they may have plans for now (I don't see any reason this is inaccurate as such/doesn't come from second hand sources) it'll come down to what they actually do. Films change direction all the time in different ways at this stage. Casting is another thing as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.