With Sony's distribution deal ended, the James Bond franchise has been on the auction block amid a studio bidding war to secure the rights to the blockbuster series. Director Sam Mendes and lead actor Daniel Craig have resigned from the franchise, so with a new distributor will also come an entirely new creative team. While it's too soon to declare any winners, and while the rights appear to still be up for grabs by any of a number of suitors -- Sony, Fox, and Paramount for example are among the studios still eagerly seeking a deal with MGM and Danjaq -- my own guess is that the secret agent film series will eventually head to Warner Bros. with filmmaker Christopher Nolan likely sitting in the director's chair.
Potential replacements for Daniel Craig have been the subject of much media speculation, but the shortlist now seems to include Tom Hiddleston, Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender, Christian Bale, and Idris Elba (who was one of
At this point, I'm inclined to think enough conversations are taking place that any of the names on the shortlist are agreeable to most of the bidders, and so it's safe to at least move forward with talks and possibly early negotiations with performers. It seems Hiddleston is most likely to win the role, and there are reports that tentative contact has been made (Hiddleston has denied being directly contacted about the role, but as we all know this is a new era when studios and actors can and do often lie out of necessity to protect secrets). We'll have to wait and see how all of that pans out, but my money is on Hiddleston.
Sony's four-film distribution run of Bond movies was impressive, raking in $3.17 billion at the worldwide box office from 2006 through 2015. Casino Royale (the film that kicked off Sony's Bond tetralogy) is often cited as the best Bond film of all time by many fans and critics, while Skyfall is the highest-grossing James Bond release of all time -- earning $1.1 billion in global receipts -- and likewise sits high on most rankings of the best 007 entries. Daniel Craig, a controversial choice at the time he was cast, has become a favorite of fans and critics, earning high praise for his complex, nuanced portrayal of the character. The four-film outing has earned more than $400 million in domestic DVD and Blu-ray revenue, and close to $1 billion in DVD/Blu-ray/Digital-HD sales and rentals around the world since 2006.
Product placements and tie-ins bring roughly $100-200 million per film, while the box office and all merchandising revenue streams combine for an average of as much as $500+ million per year from 2006 through 2015, for Sony's Bond releases. That's a hefty sum and sets the bar high for whoever winds up carrying the series forward in the future.
With the release of 2015's Spectre, the fourth and final film in Sony's distribution deal, James Bond went up for bidding, with Sony insisting it would fight to retain the rights. But Sony Pictures has suffered several major setbacks over the last few years, including the massive email hacking and subsequent scandals, as well as several expensive productions underperforming or failing at the box office.
2015 was a particularly tough time for the studio, as only two of their releases -- Spectre and Hotel Transylvania 2 -- did blockbuster business. The rest were either modestly successful low-to-mid-range budgeted films that scored less than $100 million, or more expensive pictures with high expectations that flopped or severely underperformed. In fact, Pixels -- a larger budget effects-laden summer tentpole -- is the studio's third-highest grossing film of 2015, and it took an anemic $244 million worldwide.
Those troubling figures came after a 2014 schedule that likewise saw several misfires, including at $709 million for Amazing Spider-Man 2 that doesn't amount to a flop but was a significant underperformance for a film expected to set up multiple spinoff opportunities. The result was a deal between Sony and Marvel Studios to return the wall crawler to the Marvel fold, with Sony acting as a partner but granting Marvel control over the character's cinematic future going forward. Sony's other big performer was 22 Jump Street, a sequel that grossed $331 million. There were a couple of $200+ grossers during the year as well, but the rest pretty much fell into the lower range of box office performance and failed to provide the studio much market share.
Which all creates a complicated situation for Sony. On the one hand, they desperately need to retain the Bond franchise, as it's one of the few in-house properties the studio can count on to deliver a reliable revenue stream. On the other hand, it will be hard for Sony to justify the expenditure necessary to fight off other studios and retain the distribution rights to 007. Do they spend whatever it takes to hold on to the one property they have left that can keep their doors open, or do they cut costs and save the money in hopes they can spend time focusing on lower and mid-range budgeted pictures that have scored higher profit margins and performed more reliably compared to their previous big-budget debacles?
Some even suggest it's time for Sony to sell off their movie division entirely, but I think it's surely far too early to take such notions seriously. With an upcoming slate of releases including Ghostbusters, The Magnificent Seven, and The Dark Tower, there's is plenty of time and room for Sony to refocus their efforts, make smart choices about projects, make necessary changes (already we've seen some shakeups in management over the last several days), and develop a game plan to move ahead with or without James Bond. That said, it won't be an easy road, and the Bond situation certainly makes it more painful.
Meanwhile, MGM has to decide what's best for the Bond property. The truth is, the deal with Sony has been pretty lucrative for MGM, and it's unlikely another studio will agree to similar terms. However, it's also true that Sony is unlikely to agree to continue that state of affairs, and would expect a much better deal this time around -- if they can't get it, then frankly it might not really even be worth it to Sony to stay in the fight for the rights after all, during a time of cost-cutting and realignment.
Warner, however, is pursuing the rights full steam and has much to offer -- enough, in fact, that I think it makes them the most likely studio to secure the Bond rights. Warner could use another solid, reliable franchise right now. I also believe Warner is in a strong position to put forward a better deal than other contenders. Sony couldn't really afford to continue the previous arrangement, which brought them reportedly less than a $60 million cut when Skyfall grossed more than $1 billion at the box office. The terms of that deal had Sony giving up a lot of ground, and it wouldn't be realistic for them to renew it. Paramount could use a big franchise like Bond too, but I don't think they're as well-positioned as Warner to make a lucrative offer that also includes other key artistic advantages for the Bond franchise itself (which I'll get to momentarily).
Fox does seem in a position to offer a deal similar to what Warner Bros. could put together in financial terms, and Fox has some existing relationships with MGM already. Fox's market share put them atop all studios in 2014, and in fourth place just behind Warner last year. During the rest of the past five year period, Fox held steady in sixth place for market share.
That said, I think there are personal relationships between Warner and MGM that might trump those Fox deals, and I think Warner is probably likely to be more aggressive about pursuing a deal because they really want it and need it more than any other studio except Sony (who realistically can't match what Warner brings to the table in this particular deal, in my view). Warner's own market share has been fantastic throughout the 2000s (and before then, too), always in the top three and usually in the top two. That's true even in the last couple of years when the studio seemingly has faced some difficulties with the success of their film slate. The point being, Warner's position and that of Buena Vista have remained the most reliable among the studios over the last five years. MGM is surely taking notice.
Which brings up Disney as a contender. I think, however, that Disney is so flush with properties right now, MGM likely would feel the Marvel and Star Wars brands would get the most attention and receive the best release dates. Likewise, Disney probably doesn't need to enter into a deal that wouldn't grant them a huge portion of the box office receipts. The studio just doesn't need a deal that's not to their liking, and they have their hands plenty full with tentpoles and properties, so while they would surely be happy to get Bond if the numbers are enough in their favor, I doubt they have the motivation to make the sort of deal Warner is willing to make right now.
Universal is in a strong position at the moment, and looking to increase their hold among the top market shares. Last year, they took the number one position, but most of the time they aren't among the top three, so their pitch lacks the same consistent presence atop the charts that Warner brings to the table. But on the other hand, Universal has only a handful of big tentpole properties and so securing Bond would definitely mean 007 is positioned as a dominant part of the studio's investment and release strategy. It also means they have a lot of motivation to aggressively pursue a deal. However, I am not convinced they're in the strongest position to match what Warner has to offer and the sort of compromises Warner is able to make with MGM. If there's a candidate who could upend my expectations and pull out a surprise victory in the bidding war, though, it just might be Universal.
Now, about those other WB advantages I mentioned... Warner seems the most likely to bring Christopher Nolan aboard the franchise, and that's a big chip in the studio's favor. Sony was interested in Nolan taking over Bond at one point, but the prospect of any deal evaporated when Sam Mendes returned for Spectre. So there's a chance that situation could taint any attempts to secure Nolan if Bond remains at Sony.
Nolan's schedule gives him plenty of room to fit in a Bond film, and surely if the offer became official then he'd make any necessary adjustments to ensure he could take on the project. But if Nolan for some reason was unable/uninterested in directing a Bond movie or two, then the studio's relationship with George Miller might become a trump card. If you can't have a Christopher Nolan-directed James Bond film, then a George Miller helmed Bond film -- with Tom Hardy in the title role perhaps? -- is a pretty amazing backup possibility. Or consider a one-two punch of Nolan launching a new Bond series, followed by a sequel from George Miller. That's the sort of advantages that arise from the long-term relationships Warner has built with filmmakers over the years.
If I were going to rank the studios in order of likeliness to win the rights to Bond, I think I'd say Warner is followed by Fox, and Universal is a very close third. Paramount probably takes fourth place, followed by Sony. I am guessing Disney isn't staying in the running, although it's admittedly a risk to assume Disney would sit things out.
So right now, I'm betting the next 007 outing will be directed by Christopher Nolan, with Tom Hiddleston in the lead role, released by Warner Bros. Alternately, maybe we'll wind up with a WB Bond directed by George Miller, with the license to kill in the hands of Tom Hardy. Keep in mind, Hardy has a working relationship with Nolan as well, and Christian Bale, of course, has had a close working relationship with Nolan, so if Nolan is indeed the top directorial candidate then both of those men could still be in the running even though Hiddleston does appear to be the frontrunner.
A deal could come at any time, and fans anxiously await the outcome and any word of what direction the franchise will take going forward. Hopefully, we'll start to get some signs soon as to when to expect an announcement, but right now it still appears it's anyone's ballgame. And for now, there's no rush to complete a deal, since it could be helpful to allow some time to pass before embarking on a new retooling of the Bond series after such a remarkable recent run.
What do you think about the potential for a Warner Bros. Bond franchise directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Tom Hiddleston as 007? And how about a hypothetical follow-up by George Miller with Tom Hardy in the title role? Sound off in the comments below!
Box office figures and tallies based on data via Box Office Mojo , Rentrak, and TheNumbers.
Follow me on Twitter, on Google+, and on Quora. Read my blog. Listen to my new Popular Opinion Podcast (POP) with Sean Gerber.
