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
Perhaps we as fans are over exaggerating this situation as it is now, at least to some extent (I have no doubt these tensions existed and continue to do so which put a stall in Bond, but it's likely we're a month/even further from the content of what the initial article was about. Obviously we know EON are developing CCBB for them now). But I don't know. It's really impossible for us to say.
Ultimately yes, I reckon (and personally hope) there'll be reconciliation on some level rather than one side crushing the other. Barbara Broccoli likely won't crush the oligarchic tyrants that are Amazon, and Jeff Bezos won't march in and slap EON around to make a new Bond film. It's always been the case with these things. It'll likely lead to problems down the line as previous actions have now, but this is the nature of it. They can only take each situation as it comes. Hopefully it eventually leads to EON making a film they're proud of, a majority of us fans and viewers enjoying said film, and Amazon/MGM getting their profits.
I believe the death of Bond is significant for the following reasons:
1) No or very little forward thinking/planning from Eon. As James Bond was killed at the end of NTTD there is no clear route forward. Ian Fleming never wrote nor established a multiverse where an infinite number of Bonds existed. Each Bond novel featured one James Bond set in the 1950s/60s cold war era. Fleming never killed off Bond so never had to use a narrative gimmick to bring him back to life. As Eon did kill Bond they have to find a narrative gimmick to bring him back to life. Is Bond 26 going to be a period set film? Is Bond 26 set in a new multiverse? Will there be any explanation in press junkets why/how Bond is dead in one film but alive in the next?
Bond 26 is the first time in franchise history there has to be a complete reboot of Bond's world so it's reasonable to assume Amazon can exploit that to their advantage. They can say to Eon "Bond 26 is a complete reboot not a continuation of Bond 25 so we think Bond should be changed. We want Bond to be more tolerant of others. He is pro the #me too movement and other groups in society that have been ignored in the past. As Bond died in NTTD we feel it's time to make Bond more international. We want Bond to be based in the US. That's his new home and he works for the CIA and MI6. A dual role. We feel this makes the character less UK-centric. The old Bond was too much about upholding the values of the British empire. We don't want that. If he's working for the CIA it makes him feel modern.
And Bond 26 is Bond Begins. This is Bond's first mission. We know you did that plotline in Casino Royale but Craig never looked that young. We need a late 20s or early 30s actor in the role. Based on our research we want Bond 26 to start with Bond as a boy and he finds out his parents have died in a boating accident. Mountain accidents doesn't sound right for the demographic. Boating accidents feels more relevant as gen z and gen alpha like flashy cars and sport boats. Bond's parents own a flashy boat. We sew Bond's grief when his parents die, kinda like Bruce Waybe/Batman vibe. We see Bond at a US private school and he has a few adventures at the school then we jump forward to Bond at MI6 getting his 00 rank. Soon after he moves to the US and is granted CIA agent status. We're adamant Bond Begins with three actors playing Bond one as a boy, teenager and then adult - is the way to to reboot Bond. We have a list of non white actors that could work in the part but we have no issue keeping Bond white. Get back to us with your notes and let's arrange a release date. We don't want this dragging on for too long. Bond 26 in 2026 is our aim. Get your reps to reply a.s.a.p."
Now all of the above is avoided if Bond hadn't died in NTTD. If Bond remains alive in NTTD then you carry on the exact same timeline into Bond 26. No reboot necessary (apart from recasting Bond). Eon would go into discussion/negotiation with Amazon with a better hand, in a stronger position. No Bond dead so no complete reboot necessary! By letting Bond die they've allowed Amazon to exploit the franchise. It's got to be a complete reboot and Amazon can say "well we really think Bond should be like this or do that yadda yadda yadda."
This was less likely had Bond 26 not been a complete reboot. Eon never had any long term plan beyond Bond 25? I doubt it.
2) Negligence by Eon Productions. Unfortunately this has to be expressed. The truth many fans don't want to accept is the fact it's gross negligence to kill off your golden goose. If you have the most enduring action hero in film history why would you kill him off? That's insane. Bond is Eon's golden goose. It is a profitable asset. If McDonald's announced "we've decided to axe the Big Mac. It is one of our most iconic burgers but we feel it's time for a change..." - people would think "that's a crazy decision." You don't kill your golden goose. You don't kill off your U.S.P. Your unique selling point. But Eon Productions has.
I accept Bond will rise from the dead - the character is now immortal - but why kill him in the first place? By killing him off you cheapen the sense of danger. Bond is no longer mortal. Who cares if he's blown apart in one film! He's alive and well in the next! 🙄 Eon have cheapened Bond. He's now immortal so the tangible sense of danger is gone or lessened. In my opinion this is negligence by Eon and they have tarnished and undermined the trajectory of the franchise. It's ironic that Barbara Broccoli is alleged to have called Amazon "f--ing idiots." Maybe the idiocy is Eon.
And that would be very restrictive to the storytelling and the character.
2. We don't need to guess whether BB and MGW care or not, we have an article telling us how much BB cares. We don't need to guess. We have reports. And it looks like she's protecting the character from Amazon (and probably some fans desire's for just anything to come).
Amazon and Eon's disagreements have nothing to do with the decision of killing Bond. In fact, they actually want to produce more content, so clearly they couldn't care less about Bond's fate in NTTD, they just want new stuff with him.
However, it appears that for some, nothing short of a literal line-by-line recreation of Fleming's novels onscreen will suffice.
That’s all highly condescending. The Bond franchise is what it is because of the Broccoli family. I may not agree with every creative choice they make but I certainly trust EON over Amazon. EON, and all their creative partners and employees, created the cinematic Bond. This isn’t just a fight over money or metrics, it’s a fight for the soul of the movie business. If Amazon can make the producers of one of the most celebrated and successful media franchises in the history of the world roll over, then no one and no movie is safe.
Imagine SP was Craig's last Bond. The ending seems to be written with that in mind. A new actor is cast for Bond 25 or NTTD. Now it might be trickier to have a stale mate as we have an actor we have a story direction, etc.
The fact that no actor is ready or signed, means that a stand off is easier to navigate
Not some, MOST.
We’re talking about a movie with an 83% RT and a 88% audience score. We’re talking about a movie that almost made $800m worldwide and was well-received and well-liked. I'm not letting the Bond community do that BS thing it always does where it tries to warp reality itself.
I’ve always said, every time posts about Bond are made online 90% of the comments are either demanding a new Bond or asking when a new Bond will be announced.
Folks like bondywondy trying to paint Bond’s death as some major cataclysmic event that destroys the fabric of reality are just being overdramatic and overthinking.
It’s worth considering whether Eon may have played a role in briefing the media, possibly as a calculated move to pressure Amazon. Perhaps the ultimate goal was to prompt a leadership shakeup, with Jennifer Salke potentially being replaced by someone like Courtenay Valenti, who might better align with Eon’s vision for the franchise.
Interestingly, just hours after the WSJ story broke, both Eon Productions and Amazon MGM Studios jointly announced that they would be adapting Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for the screen, to be directed by Matthew Warchus and written by Enda Walsh. The timing feels conspicuous—as if both parties were scrambling to show a united front and deflect attention from the controversy. If this was an attempt to bury the story, it hasn’t been particularly successful, especially as the British tabloids have seized on it and weaponised it within broader culture wars.
What’s clear is that the relationship between Amazon and Eon is complicated. While there’s been speculation that their partnership is beyond repair, the announcement of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang suggests they are still collaborating, albeit under strained circumstances. Amazon likely has little intrinsic interest in a project like Chitty, but they might see it as a necessary olive branch to earn Barbara Broccoli’s trust. This could pave the way for other non-Bond projects like Othello before eventually tackling Bond 26.
As for Bond 26, it seems increasingly likely we won’t see it until at least 2027. This timeline feels reasonable given that no standout contender for the role of James Bond has emerged yet.
I don’t think WSJ brought it up, but another thing was that Broccoli thought Salke didn't have enough experience to be where she’s at.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/inside-amazon-studios-jen-salke-vision-shows-1235364913/
And this is an article from a year ago.
Well unless Eon have a clear vision where to take the franchise - and if there is no screenplay written or in the pipeline any time soon - it's reasonable to assume they haven't any strong idea where to take the franchise - killing off your USP kinda negates a clear strategy going forward! No clear strategy going forward doesn't leave Eon in a strong bargaining position.
As I mentioned in my previous post, had Bond survived No Time To Die there would be a clear strategy going forward. Bond would be alive. No need to do a complete reboot.
I would posit circumstance has benefited Amazon. Not only do they hold the purse strings and can effective stall Bond 26 indefinitely - if they don't hand over the cash to finance Bond 26 Eon can no nothing other then litigate - they also have benefited from (in my opinion) the clueless, short term strategy of killing off Bond. Amazon can present a plethora of ideas how to reboot Bond. Some of the ideas may be terrible, ridiculous, but Bond is a dead cinematic character so Amazon can argue anything is possible. Bond rebooted as a woman. Bond rebooted as a teenager. Bond rebooted set in the 1950s. Bond on his first mission. Bond with a sidekick (a master/apprentice premise). Bond isn't dead. He survived the ending of NTTD and managed to avoid the missile attack. Anything is possible because Eon killed their golden goose.
The other huge factor is Eon is not dealing with the old era MGM. Barbara Broccoli may call the shots when it comes to making Bond films but I'm afraid she's going to have a rude awakening dealing with Amazon. Amazon's net worth is over two trillion dollars (if the reported figure is accurate). As money rules in this world it means Barbara Broccoli is no longer the number one authority when it comes to making James Bond films. Amazon have the financial clout to say no or to say "yes, subject to reasonable compromise." They're not a bankrupt MGM. They're the second most successful retailer on the planet (apparently Walmart is first) so if Broccoli thinks she can insult Amazon - "fking idiots" - and get her own way... it's never going to happen.
Unless there is compromise on both sides, maybe more on Eon's, I guess litigation is inevitable. If Broccoli is not prepared to work with Amazon then sell up or litigate to break ties with Amazon. And the same strategy applies to Amazon. If Eon refuse to compromise, refuse to set a fixed release date for Bond 26, sell your stake or litigate.
I think litigation is the sensible route. Let a court judgement end the impasse. If Amazon win the lawsuit Eon will have to agree a release date. For example winter 2027. That will get production moving.
They would have rebooted even if Craig Bond stayed alive at the end. After all, they rebooted with CR, even though Brosnan’s Bond didn’t have such a definitive end.
Besides, why does having Craig survive at the end give a clear “strategy”?
The ideal actor for that would be
I’d also want the new Bond to not carry any of the baggage from Craig’s run like Brofeld. Just reboot and kick it off with Bond already in the middle of his career as a 00 agent. No need for an origin story since we already got that before. Practically start it the way they did with Connery-Brosnan already firmly established.
This is incredibly flawed logic. Any event happening in the fiction of the last film doesn’t mean there’s no strategy for the next, nor would that put Eon with no bargaining power. They own half of Bond and actually make the films: that’s all the power they need.
I’m guessing you’re someone who didn’t enjoy Bond’s death, because this all comes off as trying to contort that into giving it greater meaning and consequences in the real world than it actually has.
Well unless Eon have a clear vision where to take the franchise - and if there is no screenplay written or in the pipeline any time soon - it's reasonable to assume they haven't any strong idea where to take the franchise - killing off your USP kinda negates a clear strategy going forward! No clear strategy going forward doesn't leave Eon in a strong bargaining position.
As I mentioned in my previous post, had Bond survived No Time To Die there would be a clear strategy going forward. Bond would be alive. No need to do a complete reboot.[/quote]
They've never been planning the next movie in advance. Bond 21 was meant to be Brosnan's fifth (and I highly doubt they were planning to have a 50 something Brosnan play a rookie, so the idea of making Casino Royale an early 00 story only came at a later stage, definitely not when they made Die Another Day).
For Bond 23 they had a vague idea of continuing the story from Quantum of Solace, and the mastermind behind everything was not supposed to be Blofeld. As they made Spectre they weren't sure if Craig would return, so they ended the movie in a way it could work as an ending to his era while still keeping a door open for his return.
Had Bond survived in NTTD, they still would have no idea where to take the franchise until the movie came out.
Had Bond survived, anything would still be possible. Do you seriously believe that Bond 26 would pick up the story where NTTD ended, with Bond in love with Madeleine and raising a daughter with her?
They don't care about these things, they only care about money.
Look at Pirates of the Caribbean; the fourth movie introduced a new couple of protagonists who were meant to take the place of Will & Elisabeth and ended with loose ends (e.g. Angelica and the voodoo doll), but the movie was not well received and the fifth movie discarded all those things. Why? Because making a sequel to the original PotC trilogy was more profitable than picking up the plot threads from the previous movie (even the original trilogy was contradicted a few times, e.g. Jack's compass), without the need to reboot (the fourth movie is still canon, Blackbeard gets a couple of mentions here and there). If money is involved, anything is possible.
I understand not liking the decision to kill Bond, but you clearly have no idea how movie production works and how execytives think.
Yeah indeed, that's how it's always worked.
Craig's dead? Yikes. You mean Craig's Bond. 🤭
I already explained that. If Bond survives there is no need for a complete reboot. Eon don't have to waste extra time getting screenwriters to come up with ways to bring Bond back to life. You can carry on from NTTD with Bond saying he is no longer with Swann. His daughter can be forgotten about.
Bond continuity was messed up with Casino Royale. It was impossible for M to be played by Judi Dench if CR was Bond Begins in an alternative Bond timeline. It should have been a new actor playing M. Craig was also too old for the Bond Begins storyline. Paul Haggis wrote Bond as age 28 in his CR screenplay. Craig was 38 when playing Bond in CR. The continuity/age in CR was messed about with so the same could happen in Bond 26 if Bond didn't die in NTTD. New actor in role.
M says to Bond " welcome back, 007. Pity about Swann."
Bond replies saying "the relationship didn't work out. It was agreed she had full custody of Mathilde. It's for the best."
M nods in agreement.
Bond's family is never mentioned again. This allows the writers to preserve continuity from NTTD and to avoid rehashing Bond's family. It's a clean slate moving forward. Of course this is never going to happen because Eon did kill off Bond in NTTD. Amazon could suggest "we don't want Bond dead in NTTD. Let's say he survived." That is a remote possibility. I think Eon would refuse such a suggestion but you never know. Bond 26 could be Bond assumed dead but he survived the missile strike. He was injured but avoided a direct strike. You see the explosions in front of Craig's Bond not on him. Bond was rescued or managed to crawl away. Sure, it's far fetched but Bond films are fantasy. DAD had an invisible car so Bond surviving his apparent death is possible. Bond's face is injured and this is why he looks different. The new Bond actor has a scar or some sign of facial injury. Nothing too dramatic looking but a reminder Bond was injured at the end of NTTD. Bond is missing assumed dead. A MI6 agent finds Bond and convinces him to return to the UK and continue as a 00. I believe this premise can work. I don't think Bond has to be dead in NTTD. Some fans may not like Bond surviving but my guess is most fans - hardcore or casual - will be happy if Bond survives. You preserve continuity.
NoTimeToLive wrote
Well i think it's possible if Barbara Broccoli isn't stubborn. Why not consider it?
My concern is Barbara Broccoli overthinking it all. If Bond survives you don't need this awkward complete reboot. It's inevitable a complete reboot is going to cause a rift between Eon and Amazon. They going to have very different ideas where to take the franchise in Bond 26. If they say "let's keep Bond alive, he managed to avoid death, the recast actor is part of existing continuity" I don't see major obstacles moving forward. Eon can hold the line and say "no Bond film or tv spin offs" but they can proceed with making Bond 26.
I would argue that even YOLT and OHMSS are set in different timelines as Blofeld does not recognize Bond, yet M, Q, and Moneypenny were played by the same actors.
If it's a different timeline, it means it's self-contained, so what does it matter whom the actors played in a different continuity?
NTTD has no impact on the above scenario.
1) Bond films have always been in the eternal present. DC films have been unusual in having some degree of continuity, but this is not a timeline series. The earlier films showed Bond as a functioning agent. DC films interestingly bookended the earlier films by showing Bond at the beginning and end of his career.
When the new Bond is released, it will once again be concerned with Bond as functioning agent. Even if Bond had not died, they wouldn’t have looked at NTTD and say, well that was 10 years ago, so Bond is now well into retirement, married with kids and a teenage daughter from a previous relationship. They will go back to when Bond was younger and in the pre-retirement phase of his life.
As Stamper said, Fleming did kill Bond. And Bond continued.
The concept of Bond being a CIA agent is mad. His while character is based around King and country. Becoming a mercenary is not his thing. US supranational values may be more modern, but hardly a great selling point to a global audience. There is a fine line where too much realism should not intrude on the Bond universe. Making him a US assassin takes away his USP.
2) By killing off Bond, they have merely shown how the character’s life ends - during retirement. That has no impact on his working career. I suppose you could argue that this shows he can never die during missions, but I think the audience knew that already.
'Waste extra time'? They're rebooting the series with the next one no matter what. Bond was never going to go from being in his 50s and retired to a young agent in his prime; writers don't waste time writing, it's what they do.
And it doesn't exactly require a great leap of imagination on their behalf to bring him back either: in the last one he died, in the next one he'll be alive and the events of the last films won't have happened. That was hard.
I don't think EON will have any problems with a hard reboot. "Man and British", it does not seem like difficult requirements to meet.
Ian Fleming's books provide one mostly consistent timeline, in which James Bond lives a series of adventures. Outside of issues such as Felix Leiter apparently growing new limbs to replace the ones eaten by sharks in Live and Let Die, this all believably happened to one person over a few years.
The movies started basically with a strict sense of continuity, with a few changes from the books (SPECTRE getting involved in Dr. No and FRWL instead of Smersh), but after a decade and three changes of lead actor, plus the input of various screenwriters, it would have been a mess, so they basically switched to the equivalent of a comic book continuity. Adventures all happen in modern day, the main characters don't really age, but the setting gets silently updated. That's what happened with characters such as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man in the comics, for decades. Or with The Simpsons on TV. There are switches in tones and appearances, due to the various artists and writers being in charge and people tend to prefer some eras over others. Of course, it eventually becomes a huge mess, in which we're supposed to assume that Brosnan's Bond is a widower due to events that happened to George Lazenby 25 years earlier. But it's even worse in comics.
With Craig, even if it wasn't really conscious at the time of Casino Royale, EON and the writers decided that these films would be a reboot, with a stricter sense of continuity, even if there are some callbacks, like the Goldfinger DB5 being back in Skyfall. That's also what you usually get when there are comic book adaptations (at least before the MCU). Adam West, Michael Keaton (plus, possibly, Val Kilmer and George Clooney), Christian Bale, Ben Affleck have all been the faces of different continuities of Batman. Andrew Garfield played a different version of Pete Parker/Spider-Man, compared to Tobey Maguire. If you don't like one version, just wait for the next one, and you should be happy.
It's extremely likely that the next few Bond movies, especially if the actor stays for four or five entries, will form their own continuity, and get some consistency. But that doesn't mean they'll keep the same dark and gritty tone as in the Craig years, just that there won't be some sort of collective amnesia between any two consecutive movies from that "era" and that we may get the character to slightly evolve and mature before a new change in the lead actor, with another continuity, happens. It won't be a return to some comic book/The Simpsons version of continuity, it's mostly a solution to get rid of some baggage.
I don’t get your obsession with continuity.
If we had continuity and Craig Bond didn’t die, then we would have a series of films about a retired secret agent freelancing, rather than an integral part of the Deep State with a license to kill - which, in a democracy, is a scary thought.
You say continuity was messed up with Casino Royale - I would suggest it was messed up in OHMSS when Blofeld didn’t recognise Bond.
If you are purist about continuity, then this retired agent, who was in his mid 30s in the early 1960s would now be in his mid 90s! Presumably investigating who was stealing his hob nobs in his retirement home.
And I don’t think Craig was too old for Casino Royale. He was a retired Special Forces sailor, who moved into espionage - but more SOE than Smiley - so mid to late 30s seems fine to me.
Well it's five years since NTTD was completed and the only update we've had on Bond 26 is
That gives no credibility to your comment:
There is no plan in place for a reboot. Nothing.
Also, since NTTD was completed three Sonic The Hedgehog films have been released. I mention that fact because the original 2020 release date of NTTD was February 14th 2020, the same release date of Sonic The Hedgehog 1. Accepting the huge distribution delay caused by covid, in the time since NTTD was intended to be released Paramount has produced and released three Sonic films. I accept Eon is a vastly smaller company than Paramount but there seems to be zero enthusiasm to get things moving.
And based on the new 'news' Barbara Broccoli has a convenient excuse to delay Bond 26 for another five years! If The Wall Street Journal's reporting is accurate Broccoli wants nothing to do with Amazon. If that is true (maybe it's a bit click baity in tone but if we assume it's fact) then the franchise is over or over for some time. If Broccoli refuses to deal with Amazon then Amazon can litigate. Any litigation can be protracted and if Amazon were to win the lawsuit Eon can face heavy damages. Eon responsible for loss of potential earnings, breach of contract, unreasonable delay.
It's not a good idea for Broccoli to refuse to deal with Amazon. The legal and financial ramifications are serious. If Eon believe they have the legal right to refuse to co-produce with Amazon then good luck. Maybe they have a legal option to veto all of Amazon's plans. It seems unlikely but who knows.