The bear and bull cases for Bezos' Bond
Amazon is taking creative control of the James Bond franchise. Is it as bad as it sounds?
The Gist
Amazon announced it will take over creative control of the James Bond franchise.
The announcement prompted instant and widespread criticism.
Here are the reasons this may not be as bad as it sounds — and the reasons for why it probably is.
Amazon announced this week that it will take over creative control of the James Bond franchise from its years-long stewards, half-siblings Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. The freak out was instant and nearly unanimous.
Broccoli and Wilson inherited the franchise from Broccoli’s father, who founded Eon, the production company behind most of the Bond films. Broccoli told Variety in 2020, “For better or worse, we are the custodians of this character. We take that responsibility seriously.”
A year later, Amazon bought MGM, which distributes the Bond movies. People were still sure that Broccoli and Wilson would stay the course; when I reported for Business Insider, I spoke to “Casino Royale” director Martin Campbell shortly after the Amazon purchase was announced, and he had this to say: “No one's going to fuck around with their success. It's Barbara and Michael's franchise no matter who's providing the money. They've been through many changes and regimes and survived them all."
But since then, movement on the next iteration of the character to succeed Daniel Craig had reportedly stalled; according to a recent Wall Street Journal report, Broccoli called Amazon execs “fucking idiots.”
So what changed? Reports indicate that Amazon wore Broccoli down (and shelled out a billion dollars) and Wilson was ready to retire.
It’s probably as bad as it sounds, but let’s take a breath.
🐂 The bull case
Money.
Yeah, yeah, I know. But Amazon has shown a willingness to throw any amount of money at something it believes in. It arguably overpaid for MGM ($8.5 billion after other potential suitors drew the line at $6 billion) and then threw out another billion for Bond. It paid nearly $300 million for just the Lord of the Rings rights and spent millions more to actually make the show.
So as long as Bond is a priority for the company — and it will be — the property will have significant financial backing. And as we saw with this coup, money talks.
That means Amazon has the resources, if they’re smart, to recruit top talent. It may be taking over “creative control” of the Bond franchise, but Jeff Bezos or Mike Hopkins won’t be writing the scripts. If Amazon intends to shake (not stir) as much as it can get out of Bond, then the wise thing to do would be to hire its own Kevin Feige to steer the ship — someone who would be more hands-off of the individual projects than Broccoli, but would still have the creative instincts for an “expanded universe” that the Amazon honchos may not.
A Bond “universe” sounds dire to longtime fans, but this is the reality we are living in now. And in this day and age, for better or worse, it’s a rarity for a franchise to only be a movie franchise. Even the new Indiana Jones video game was a hit, after “Dial of Destiny” disappointed at the box office.
Everything that plays on a screen is fighting for people’s attention, and to survive for more years to come — and excite a new generation of fans — maybe it’s time for Bond to expand. Every generation has a Bond they can claim as theirs, and my millennial ass considers Craig my Bond. But it was easy to woo me back in 2006; Gen Z and Gen Alpha won’t be as easily swayed.
But unless Amazon royally fucks it up, films will still be the anchor for the Bond franchise, as they have been for six decades.
According to Puck, Christopher Nolan hasn’t directed a Bond movie yet (despite being open about wanting to) because the Broccolis “wouldn’t cede control.” There was apparently tension between them and “Skyfall” director Sam Mendes, too. So with the half-sibs out of the way, perhaps Amazon can convince Nolan, or a Nolan-type (if that exists), to come on board for the next film installment. Again, money talks.
Bond is probably the most consistent film franchise of all time, with Godzilla its only real competition. The biggest gap between Bond films so far has been six years. It’s been four years since “No Time to Die,” and if the stalemate between the Broccolis and Amazon continued, the gap would have definitely exceeded six. It might still even now, but there can at least be movement on a new film to keep the franchise relevant.
🐻 The bear case
Yes, it’s bad that we are ceding one of our most cinematic properties to a tech company that will likely juice it for “content.”
But beyond that, Amazon has shown that it is just kind of bad at this whole Hollywood thing.
It’s been three years since the company closed its purchase of MGM and it’s had little to show for it to this point. Its “Lord of the Rings” show has been a miss, losing half of its audience from season one to season two. Its mega-expensive “Citadel” series was a mega flop. “Red One,” with a $250 million budget, flailed at the box-office; and while it was the only original movie to chart on Nielsen’s list of the top streaming movies of 2024 in the US, it’s hard to see it as a franchise starter.
Yes, Prime Video has had hits, like “The Boys” and “Reacher.” And Bond would actually fit nicely into its library of “dude” stuff. But it’s understandable that Bond as a “library asset” would leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.
It’s inevitable that a Bond “expanded universe” is coming, but as Star Wars and Marvel have shown, it’s easy to A. oversaturate a franchise and B. cause confusion among the fanbase. Yeah, the tactic has had success recently, such as with HBO’s “The Batman” spinoff, “The Penguin,” which stood on its own merits. But Prime Video isn’t HBO.
Further, streaming-first and tech companies like Netflix and Amazon have struggled to build reliable film franchises, something the traditional Hollywood studios have been doing for decades. Even if Amazon hired a creative steward to oversee the franchise, like I suggested above, how much flexibility would the company cede after spending billions for Bond? Jeff Bezos is already asking on social media who should play the next version of the character. Barf.
Lastly, the potential for this to upend the theater industry is substantial. Bond has been, mostly, a consistent presence in theaters for decades and has generated over $2 billion in domestic ticket sales (before inflation) and $8 billion worldwide. “Skyfall” grossed over a billion dollars, “Spectre” over $800 million, and “No Time to Die” over $700 million in pandemic-plagued 2021.
What happens if Amazon decides to pull a Bond movie from theaters after a few weeks? Luckily, top filmmakers still have some sway, as we’ve seen with Netflix’s Narnia movie deal.
So yeah, this seems bad. But let’s also relax, take a sip of a nice martini, and see how it all shakes out.
Beyond the Traverse
📺 Marvel is pausing development on some TV shows and taking a more traditional approach to greenlighting projects.
🍿 The Imax CEO isn’t in a hurry to do another “complex” deal with Netflix after its Narnia agreement.
🎮 The game director of the hit game “Marvel Rivals,” along with others, was laid off.
⭐️ Daisy Ridley says “the wait will be worth it” for her delayed Rey movie (yeah, this is not happening).
Very level-headed analysis. I do think Broccoli/Wilson had gotten very stingy about putting more Bond out into the world, and they did seem to be at a creative dead end after Craig left. But I have all the worries about Amazon that everybody else has. Hopefully that scrutiny from the fan base will push them to take a little more care with the Bond franchise than they otherwise would have!