Who's the real villain here?

The Butterfly Effect



Scrolled past a tweet a few days ago and didn't give it much attention but it's stuck with me.

Who's the real villain who has (perhaps inadvertently) caused the unnecessary delay?

Eon:
Barbara holding out for Daniel Craig to decide to return no doubt triggered the chain of events. Was she right to hold out for an actor so unenthused with playing James Bond? Or was it simply fatigue and the necessary 1-2 years break between SP and Bond 25's development needed to regroup to identify what worked and what didn't with SP (though it was plainly obvious in its development phase so I can't imagine this came as a surprise to them)?

Daniel Craig:
No doubt his indecisiveness meant prolonging development and production of the film. That in itself should have convinced him to say no; if he has to weigh up the pros and cons it might not be the job for him anymore. But it also meant following up on story threads to justify SP's ending and Craig-Bond's return, which has no doubt caused the infamous scripting issues. Perhaps if it was a standalone movie there would be less of a worry to make sense of the messy arc from CR-SP.

Danny Boyle:
What if he didn't pitch Eon his idea? A few months intermission from the P&W script perhaps took the duo's passion and faith they had in their idea since it was so expendable for a supposedly superior idea. Remember, when he left, release was postponed until April 2020, so...

Coronavirus:
... Had Boyle not boarded the film, the film would have been released before COVID19 was.

I'm going to go with Eon. Because they also had a part in throwing out Boyle's script for being too political, resulting in a delay.

There's many other factors not brought up in your points. For one, EON was already looking into other actors before Craig had decided to come back for another. The one that got the most press was the talks between EON and Tom Hiddleston in May of 2017. Of course that fell through (scuttlebutt was that him dating Taylor Swift at the time caused some complications, I'm sure he's got positive things to say of her now!).

Another is that EON and MGM did not have a producing partner in order to make a Bond film sooner. Aside from the deal with Sony expiring, a regime change happened at Sony, with Tom "Deadpool will never make money" Rothman having taken over from Amy Pascal, who was EON's closest ally now gone. While Sony would ultimately enter the bidding war anyway (despite Rothman claiming he had no interest to), it's not surprising EON would decide not to continue with Sony after those leaks and with Rothman being the micromanager he is.

One of the main reasons Universal agreed to be the co-production studio for NTTD was the stipulation that Craig would come back. If he couldn't, Universal wouldn't have been interested in partnering for a Bond 25 with a new actor. This is why the Universal deal was for one film only. This is why after Boyle departed Craig didn't leave as well, as he was part of the Universal deal. One could say Bond has appeal beyond Craig and that the studios looking into becoming a partner should have recognized that, but these big studios only want to invest on a sure thing with a recognizable actor that drew in big box office in the iconic role (just look at how much Disney spent to keep Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man). This is why having Amy Pascal in Sony made Craig's casting possible in the first place, as no other studio would have signed off an unknown like Craig in 2005.

All these factors gives me reasons to believe that even if Craig had definitively said he was done after SP, EON would still have had a difficult time trying to get Bond 25 off the ground with a new actor. And this all goes back to how fragile MGM is. If MGM was in a stronger position as a studio like they were in the past, all these delays including the one that took place between QOS and SF wouldn't have happened. There wouldn't be a need to negotiate with other studios to put their money on the line. We'd probably be talking about a Bond 27 being in development at this point.

This is why I think it would be best for MGM to be bought up by Apple. With that kind of backing, MGM would have all the resources they need in order to prosper as a stronger studio, providing they make box office hits in the process. EON won't have to depend on co-production studio deals anymore and be able to just get on with making Bond films.

I didn't think the Tom Hiddleston story amounted to more than just rumour.

MP wrote:

Another is that EON and MGM did not have a producing partner in order to make a Bond film sooner. Aside from the deal with Sony expiring, a regime change happened at Sony, with Tom "Deadpool will never make money" Rothman having taken over from Amy Pascal, who was EON's closest ally now gone. While Sony would ultimately enter the bidding war anyway (despite Rothman claiming he had no interest to), it's not surprising EON would decide not to continue with Sony after those leaks and with Rothman being the micromanager he is.

Maybe. But it still boils down to a less-than-enthusiastic Eon potentially elongating the process - maybe to see if they can include Craig in the deal or not - as well as the fact that perhaps the burned out Miccoli need micromanaging, considering that Pascal and co. pointed out glaring issues with SP but they didn't implement any changes.

MP wrote:

One of the main reasons Universal agreed to be the co-production studio for NTTD was the stipulation that Craig would come back. If he couldn't, Universal wouldn't have been interested in partnering for a Bond 25 with a new actor. This is why the Universal deal was for one film only. This is why after Boyle departed Craig didn't leave as well, as he was part of the Universal deal. One could say Bond has appeal beyond Craig and that the studios looking into becoming a partner should have recognized that, but these big studios only want to invest on a sure thing with a recognizable actor that drew in big box office in the iconic role (just look at how much Disney spent to keep Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man). This is why having Amy Pascal in Sony made Craig's casting possible in the first place, as no other studio would have signed off an unknown like Craig in 2005.

Again, that goes back on Eon. If Eon were seriously considering other Bond actors, that should have trusted that instinct and gone elsewhere. Bond is lucrative - always has been. Universal clearly wasn't the right business partner and they should have moved on. But they got scared. Or in Babs' case, wet for Craig.

Quote :

I didn't think the Tom Hiddleston story amounted to more than just rumour.

The Hiddleston thing was indeed real. Confirmed by Phil Nobile Jr.

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/27/exclusive-tom-hiddleston-in-talks-for-bond-25

So if Hiddleston was in talks, makes me wonder how true many of the rumored talks with actors were.

Quote :

Again, that goes back on Eon. If Eon were seriously considering other Bond actors, that should have trusted that instinct and gone elsewhere. Bond is lucrative - always has been.

You could say the same of the 1980s when they not only looked into other actors but went as far as screen testing. Ultimately, they decided to bring Moore back and increase his salaries until he said he was done for good. I personally would have preferred they looked for a new actor by AVTAK, but that was Cubby's business, not anyone else's.

Quote :

Universal clearly wasn't the right business partner and they should have moved on.

Given CraigBond's box office run, it is not any surprise that a major studio would want a reliable Craig who hadn't officially quit, rather than a newbie.

Quote :

But they got scared. Or in Babs' case, wet for Craig.

Typical KKBB remark.