Who should/could be a Bond actor?

echo

bondywondy wrote: »

According to Sam Mendes, Barbara Broccoli has final say over who gets to play Bond... however Amazon own half the franchise and its extremely unlikely Amazon won't protest or won't put up some resistance if Eon want an actor that Amazon don't like. If Broccoli really did call Amazon "f-g idiots" then Amazon have no reason to play nice. If they don't take legal action against Eon for 'unreasonable delay/breach of contract' (or something along those lines) - the other ploy could be to veto Broccoli's choice of Bond, veto her choice of locations, veto aspects of the storyline.

Amazon may be so powerful they're prepared to stall Bond 26 indefinitely and veto Broccoli's choice of Bond. That's the worst case scenario but maybe it's a temporary dispute and they'll resolve it and all be friends again. ;))

Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel wrote:

December 22 Posts: 4,412Flag
Jeff Sneider has reported the following:

It’s likely no coincidence that this week, I heard that Aaron Taylor-Johnson was out of the running for James Bond. I’m now confident that the role will end up going elsewhere. It’s not just that audiences didn’t have an appetite for Kraven this weekend, it’s that they didn’t seem to be particularly interested in Taylor-Johnson, whose name won’t be used to sell Sony’s 28 Years Later, either. That’s a Danny Boyle-Alex Garland movie as much as it is IP, but what it isn’t is the new Aaron Taylor-Johnson movie.

So The Sun got it wrong? Shock horror. ;))

Interestingly enough, The Sun did accurately predict Daniel Craig would be Bond. They ran news he was signed before the official Eon announcement.

This is nonsense. A lawsuit between Eon and Amazon will *delay* the film, not make it happen.

And by that point, it will be too late for Cavill to be Bond. On the plus side, it gives him time for acting classes.

bondywondy

echo wrote: »

bondywondy wrote: »

According to Sam Mendes, Barbara Broccoli has final say over who gets to play Bond... however Amazon own half the franchise and its extremely unlikely Amazon won't protest or won't put up some resistance if Eon want an actor that Amazon don't like. If Broccoli really did call Amazon "f-g idiots" then Amazon have no reason to play nice. If they don't take legal action against Eon for 'unreasonable delay/breach of contract' (or something along those lines) - the other ploy could be to veto Broccoli's choice of Bond, veto her choice of locations, veto aspects of the storyline.

Amazon may be so powerful they're prepared to stall Bond 26 indefinitely and veto Broccoli's choice of Bond. That's the worst case scenario but maybe it's a temporary dispute and they'll resolve it and all be friends again. ;))

Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel wrote:

December 22 Posts: 4,412Flag
Jeff Sneider has reported the following:

It’s likely no coincidence that this week, I heard that Aaron Taylor-Johnson was out of the running for James Bond. I’m now confident that the role will end up going elsewhere. It’s not just that audiences didn’t have an appetite for Kraven this weekend, it’s that they didn’t seem to be particularly interested in Taylor-Johnson, whose name won’t be used to sell Sony’s 28 Years Later, either. That’s a Danny Boyle-Alex Garland movie as much as it is IP, but what it isn’t is the new Aaron Taylor-Johnson movie.

So The Sun got it wrong? Shock horror. ;))

Interestingly enough, The Sun did accurately predict Daniel Craig would be Bond. They ran news he was signed before the official Eon announcement.

This is nonsense. A lawsuit between Eon and Amazon will *delay* the film, not make it happen.

And by that point, it will be too late for Cavill to be Bond. On the plus side, it gives him time for acting classes.

I think a lawsuit is a reasonable, potential scenario. Put it this way, imagine you're Amazon and you want to make Bond films. You paid billions to acquire MGM studio and a 50 percent stake in the James Bond franchise.

Barbara Broccoli is refusing to work with Amazon (maybe she feels she is protecting the franchise and doing it for honourable reasons). Amazon don't care what her reasons are, all they want is to make Bond films, hopefully decent ones - but they can't wait years and years for Eon to be "ready." So if you were Amazon what would you do?

File a lawsuit for unreasonable delay.

Yes, you can file a lawsuit for an unreasonable delay in contract law if the delay meets certain criteria:
Contract terms
If the contract states that time is "of the essence", you can terminate the contract and claim damages for any delay. If the contract doesn't include this phrase, you can still claim damages, but you can't terminate the contract.
Unreasonable delay
If the delay was so unreasonable that it constituted an intentional abandonment of the contract, you can file a lawsuit.
Bad faith
If the delay was caused by the other party's bad faith, willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct, you can file a lawsuit.
Uncontemplated delay
If the delay was unexpected, you can file a lawsuit.
Breach of fundamental obligation
If the delay was caused by the other party's breach of a fundamental obligation of the contract, you can file a lawsuit.

I think Amazon have a good case. No Time To Die was released in 2021. It's original date was 2019 then 2020. It's almost 2025. If there's no development by summer or autumn 2025 maybe Amazon should say "that's it. We've had enough waiting. You haven't provided us with any screenplay, any draft, nothing. See you in court!"

Amazon can wait for years and years if they want to. They don't need Bond nor MGM. They make enough money but as they did buy MGM and they have half ownership of the Bond franchise they might as well file a lawsuit and get things moving.

It's possible the threat of a lawsuit might make Broccoli think twice about calling Amazon fking idiots! A reality check.🤭

DewiWynBond

EoN could defend themselves with valid reasons for the delay. We don't know what the contract is about release timing - in theory it could be this.