Amazon MGM acquired creative control over 007

Films
755

In this current era of theatrical earnings uncertainty with dwindling audience attendance AND with a lot of people questioning Amazon’s ability to successfully continue the James Bond brand for even ONE film, it makes the most sense to play it safe and go for the surest thing this casting time around. Yes, taking a risk and getting it right might make you more money, but if it’s wrong, you’re going to crash and burn and take any good will you may have had with you right into the ground.

So the surest James Bond casting option is Henry Cavill. He’s a previous runner-up, he’s long been assumed as the heir in waiting, the public want (and love him), and he seems to be a pretty good dude who is also a fan of the series and would be a good ambassador for the powers that be. The last time the 007 series was in a similar situation was in 1995 after a six-year hiatus and people were wondering if James Bond was still relevant. :roll_eyes: At that time, the consensus number one candidate was Pierce Brosnan who ticked off ALL the same boxes Cavill does now. And what do you know? He turned out pretty well becoming the first billion-dollar Bond. :dollar: :smiley: :moneybag:

Judging by Amazon’s Who Should Be James Bond poll from three days ago, Cavill is the far and away winner of the poll with over 54% of the vote by HIMSELF. The next closest is Idris Elba at 17.4% That is a HUGE gap. Granted, that is just X/Twitter people, but that is a sizable chunk, and I wouldn’t doubt the rest of the general public would also have him as their top choice (though probably not at 54%, but who knows?)

Anyway, Amazon could do A LOT worse than Cavill. He looks like James Bond and men seem to like him and women absolutely love him. And with the seemingly large public backing of him via that poll, and comments elsewhere, if Amazon ended up not casting Cavill, I could see that potentially adversely affecting their bottom line with some of those same people protesting Amazon’s decision by NOT going to see the new Bond film because Cavill is not in it. Hardcore fans would go regardless, but we don’t make up the majority of the butts in seats.

At 43/44 Cavill would not be too old (between Brosnan and Roger Moore when they started), is in great shape, and still looks good. He can easily do four films in a three-year span before hanging up the holster–or more if the gap between films is shorter.

The saying goes, you only get one chance to make a first impression. For Amazon’s James Bond future, it doesn’t get any bigger than this. Make the right choice and you’ve earned yourself some good will that could go a long way in starting your 007 legacy. Make the wrong choice and you’re running in mud that’s dangerously looking like quicksand.

So, the safest–and, yes, BEST–option for Amazon right now is to go with Henry Cavill as the next James Bond 007.

3 Likes
756

Both those series, however, were not dependent on casting as a PR tool. Did anybody know the guy who was chosen for Reacher? Did anybody but the fan base for that care? And LOTR sells itself. Also: both are tv projects, available through Prime which most Amazon customers have access to and can watch without buying tickets to.

Bond is a very different animal. They will need to launch the next film with a world wide effectiveness. And while Bezos‘ Twitter poll is as ludicrous as any internet polls it does show they are going for the lowest common denominator.

Cavill‘s age is a problem but his social media followers are legion, so he will have the edge.

And once Amazon has cast and announced Cavill the first step of selling the next Bond film has already been made. Mark my words: this will happen.

4 Likes
757

Oh, by the way…

2 Likes
758

I can see a few more of the trusty old EON behind the scenes crew doing this as well, whether that’s due to loyalty to the former producers or just seeing the writing on the wall. It is sad, but inevitable. Amazon probably want to start from scratch with an entirely new (or mostly new) crew anyway–and the James Bond series probably needs some new blood behind the scenes as well, not that Debbie McWilliams was necessarily one of those needing to be changed. But it is what it is.

EON Bond is dead :sob:. Long live (well-made :pray:) Amazon Bond.

5 Likes
759

I’ve been thinking about this. Who gets retained and who wants to be? Amazon will get their own people in, and as owners that’s their right. But is it a complete overhaul? Are token connections to the past brought in every now and then? I’m all for new composers but I could see David Arnold coming back for a movie being warmly received, for example.

5 Likes
760

Enjoyed your post Double-Oh, but in the spirit of the forum I want to offer some alternative thoughts.

Having lived through 89-95, while the gaps are the same, I’d offer the uncertainty is of a different nature, thereby giving Amazon a bit more leeway than “bomb and the whole thing’s over.”

89-95 it really did seem like the series was dead. Locked in legal wrangling, and a marketplace dominated by a very different action picture sensibility, celluloid Bond was gone with no sign of return. The most you’d read would be a 2-inch column in a tabloid touting everyone from Ian McShane to Inspector Morse, an occasional showing on TV, or VHS-ing yourself when you pleased.

The here and now is a very different era. Bond’s been away but clearly never gone - the internet, forums like this, a greater “respect” from the media place for the product (the 89-95 media are exactly who M is referring to in her GE speech about Bond being an anachronism - the series was seen as an institution rather than as “gulp” art), mean that there is always interest bubbling away under the surface; for those of us old enough, I think we’ve always been 99% certain Bond would be back, just only a case of when. Not so in the 90s. No news was very much bad news. When GE came out, it had to be a hit, or Bond would have proved to have been “yesterday’s” flavour.

I was never a huge Brozza guy - I was relieved when it fell through in '87 as I really didn’t rate him (plus TD is fantastic) but he won me over in GE. Ultimately though, through no fault of his (I’ve been consistent when I’ve said he’s the best thing about his films) his era represents the fears I had in '86 about where the series might go - showing up on schedule, doing its thing, pun here, pun there, and beyond GE, nothing that truly stays in the memory.

That said, in 95 his casting made a lot of sense but it’s important for any of us not to be revisionist - if Cubby had had his way, TD would have returned. If Babs had had her way, it might have been Bean. And the studio were on record as wanting Mel Gibson, who if he’d said yes, would have been Bond (there were many MGM/UA execs who felt “we need a star for this or we’re screwed”). Brozza was first-choice in '87; in '95 when he did get the job, ironically he was second.

I’d offer the here and now is different - Amazon can pick who they like and the public will give it a go. Unlike Star Wars, Indy, Bourne, Ryan, Bond IS now indestructible as a product. I’d offer they don’t need to faff about with a “safe” pair of hands - they should grab an opportunity to show they can do something with it.

I don’t disagree they could do a lot worse than Cavill. But I’d also offer it would be incompetence of the highest order not to screen test a whole load of others to see what they could do. I’m unconvinced that Bezos’ poll was full of non-Bond fans having their say. Because if Cavill’s rep was so high amongst the masses, well, then Argyle wouldn’t have bombed, UNCLE wouldn’t have bombed, and Gunn would have fallen over himself to have him back as Superman. Yes, there are a myriad of reasons that films don’t do well, but leads get the big bucks and they carry the can too.

Could he be a good Bond? Of course. But I suspect there are a good few others.

Now, where’s my Adrian Paul T-shirt…

10 Likes
761

I don’t think they should choose Cavill. I don’t think he’s the right guy for Bond.

Having said that: his pull with a big audience segment is not to be underestimated, and therefore Amazon will think of him. And he’s not the first guy who had flops before he gets chosen for the right kind of role and then becomes a success. “Argyle” and “UNCLE” bombed for many other reasons than Cavill. People just did not want to see these films in the numbers that were needed. Brosnan never was a hit at the box office until Bond.

I thought about that when watching GE. And I must say: I never liked Bean. I don’t even think he’s very good in GE. If he had been Bond it would have been the end of that era very quickly.

3 Likes
762

Adrian Paul would be a good Tanner or M.

3 Likes
763

You’re right - Brozza’s career had bounced around the occasional mini-series and the backwaters of straight-to-video. But he did have name recognition of having been the guy in '86. So for many he was already Bond. I’d offer that had he been just one of many screen-tested (not unlike Sam Neill) rather than winning the role outright as he’d done, he would not have got the part in '95.

I’ll posit a theory that Cubby’s insistence with not “sharing” Brozza with NBC, ultimately hung a stone around TD’s neck, who had to doubly contend with comparisons with his predecessor (already a gargantuan task), as well as comparisons with the man he was perceived to be “subbing” for.

I’d offer the challenges for who gets the job now will be lesser, at least on those fronts. The audience are well-conditioned to the change of leads, and now have seen the character interpreted a variety of ways. I suspect the challenge for the next actor won’t be “he’s not Bond!”, it will be more like “he’s too much like” any of his predecessors.

5 Likes
764
3 Likes
765

“Can they make Bond the next Marvel? Who knows. Bond has always been so tightly controlled. Sporadic movies, there’s never been a TV series, there isn’t theme park world built around it. How can you create the world of Bond?”

Any understanding that “tight control” may not have been just correlative to, but causative of the franchise’s value?

As a top entertainment executive tells THR , franchise-quality IP is so scarce that companies need to fully exploit what they control, even at the risk of overexposure. (Emphasis mine)

4 Likes
766

Working for an oligarch:

“I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages. We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” Bezos said on X on Tuesday.

I see it now: Bond fighting the good fight for investment banks and day traders alike, and M assigning him to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

5 Likes
767

To be clear, I’m not saying that the James Bond series is dead if they miscast 007 and the film bombs. However, I am saying that people would be even more pessimistic about Amazon’s Bond than they are now and some (a lot?) might not give them a second chance–or at least be very hesitant to give them a second chance.

Back in 1989-95, I was one who was in the Bond-will-come-back-to-the-big-screen camp. I just didn’t know when–and it was a long wait. And I’m not entirely convinced that had GoldenEye not been a hit that the series was dead. I think EON had enough good will to try again, but it would have been a major wound to the series and probably put it in critical condition all while having to deal with a lower budget as well.

I was a Pierce Brosnan guy and was very disappointed in him not getting the role back 1987. But looking back–certainly for him–it was probably better that he didn’t get the role then for a couple of reasons. 1) At the time I didn’t think so, but looking back he looked too young. That was not the case in 1995. That was due no doubt to his life experience as, unfortunately, his wife, Cassandra Harris, died of ovarian cancer in the meantime. As a result, he gained much more “seasoning” in the face and, while never the bulkiest of actors, also seemed to get a little broader in the the torso. And 2) he didn’t have to face the six year gap that Timothy Dalton did so he had a fresh, uninterrupted run.

I liked Dalton and thought he did well. Shoot, his second film, Licence To Kill is my favorite Bond film. However, he could have done better with the humor, which is puzzling since, after Bond, he’s been really good at it. I would have liked him to get a third film, but I think EON & MGM/UA probably had to go with a new actor in 1995. That’s because, unfortunately, Dalton’s tenure was received lukewarmly by the public–particularly in America. His Bond rep is better now than it was then. It’s not his fault his tenure was so short, but the six-year gap gave a good excuse to restart with a new actor.

And I like Sean Bean, but he’s better as a villain than 007, and while I also like Mel Gibson, I don’t quite see him as James Bond (and he’s a tad short). But I can definitely see MGM/UA giving him the gig had he wanted it. But fortunately, Brosnan got it. Like Sean Connery and Roger Moore, he was the right Bond at the right time. And, like them, he did a great job.

I’m sure they’ll screen test a lot of actors for the 007 role–as they should. But Henry Cavill should be Amazon’s odds-on favorite going in. As for why Argyle bombed, one could say it was in part because Cavill was hardly in it. I haven’t seen the film, but to my understanding, he’s only in two or three scenes and those are just the heroine’s creative writing bits. Also, the reviews were bad. As for The Man From U.N.C.L.E., it was a movie of a TV show from 50 years ago that many young movie goers were probably not aware of so they stayed away. I enjoyed the film, but unfortunately, not enough people saw it. And a lot of people are still upset that Cavill is no longer Superman. (Not me as it opens up his ability to be James Bond.) But as for James Gunn not keeping Cavill as Superman, well, he didn’t keep Gal Gadot or Ben Affleck either and most everyone liked Gadot’s Wonder Woman character and people seemed to like Affleck’s Batman as well. So that might just be a case of new entity taking over and starting from scratch.

But, yes, Cavill hasn’t had a lot of hits, but as secretagentfan said, Brosnan didn’t either. Nor did Connery–and Moore wasn’t a big movie star either. Actually, no James Bond actor has had a lot of hit movies before becoming 007. But ultimately, all that matters is if you are right for the part. I think Cavill is the best man for the job. The question is if Amazon will think so.

8 Likes
768

“Personal liberties and free markets”.

I thought Terry Gilliam only made fictional movies.

3 Likes
769

Perhaps. But we’re speculating about the future here. Why not judge them when they actually do this?

This is true but I am wondering what Amazon properties you were speaking about when you said:

I read the above quote to mean Amazon has already done this. If so, with what properties? I have given two prominent examples where they did not do this. No worries if was just quick typing as I am guilty of that as much as anyone.

If we are focused on the future only, I would suggest it’s speculation. Many people on here, including you, have connections to the film industry and a much better understanding of what goes on behind the scenes than many (certainly me as I have zero connections). However, I am not sure anyone has the inside scoop on Amazon’s plans. All of us seemed caught of guard by Amazon gaining control of Bond. So does anyone know for sure what they are going to do next?

2 Likes
770

I think there is the potential to flesh out the Bond world a little bit (i.e., perhaps one or two things on TV with shorter seasons and never released near the movies). Anyting close to Marvel would be a mistake. I think Marvel up to Endgame did a wonderful job but they had a lot more characters to work with than exist in the Bond world.

1 Like
771

You can look at any tv show Amazon has initiated in the last decade, also at any tv movie. The process of attracting talent and then tailoring a story around him/her is not new, of course. The studios packaged projects the same way. And before you say: but they also had a script… yeah. Sometimes. But even if there is a draft it would get rewritten or thrown out for a new start.

To be clear: I don’t blame studios or Amazon for that approach. It’s just a fact of filmmaking life.

But that’s why I applied it to the conceptualization of future Bond films. Amazon will want an actor who they can market. And this will come before they settle on a director or a script.

1 Like
772

You‘re sure about this?

The idea for „Rings of Power“ was: damnit, we need to use that IP. How? Figure it out later, we are announcing this.

The idea for „Reacher“ was: we have to use that IP. What, there were two movies already? Okay, but with Cruise, and the fans thought he was not tall enough. So get someone who fits the description in the novels, the fans will be happy. Next step: figure out which novels you can mine.

1 Like
773

“Sources familiar with Amazon’s next steps on Bond say a new film is the top priority, and the studio will look first to attach a producer in the vein of David Heyman, who shepherded the “Harry Potter” and “Fantastic Beasts” films with a cohesive vision.”

5 Likes
774

I must say their strict no final cut-politics, even when it came to someone like Nolan, was wrong.