78 replies to this topic

[zencat]

At last! Official news! (Too bad it's not good news)

"Breaking News! Bond 21 on Hold, MGM Confirms No Bond in '05" Variety reports failure to sign director and actor as cause

[Genrewriter]

Nice report, zencat. I'm really not too surprised, with the lack of any real news of sustance this close to '05 it would have been a real hassle to get the film in theaters by next year anyhow. Hopefully this means they're aiming for quality over simply getting a product into theaters.

[Athena007]

WoW... WoW... WoW! Finally some BOND 21 news. Though not particularly good news, it's not surprising news either. But I'm just stoked to have REAL 007 NEWS! Though if they're delaying it to 2006, why not just wait till 2007 (that -007 really is staring me in the face, if there's not a Bond movie that year, well that will just bum).

This particular paragraph interests me the most...

CBn Article: Variety reports that no offer has yet been made to any actor. Pierce Brosnan, who has said he'd be interested in returning for a fifth outing, hasn't been approached by the producers. Eon is considering introducing a new actor as Bond, but one sticking point could be gross participation. No actor has ever received a percentage of the gross for playing James Bond, which could keep some high-profile names from putting on the spy's tuxedo.

...I guess percentages really are a big deal now'a'days. I wonder if Eon would ever give in about this -- they are pretty stubborn.

[Tarl_Cabot]

*&^%$#@!!!!!!!

Get off your lazy duffs and get the job done! Brosnan and make a Bond film!!!! Jesus! You people are pathetic!!! Cubby would be appalled at the lack of will....

God damnit I'm pissed! Make a Bond film!!!!! It's not that hard. Just get a decent script...no genetic mutilation ...etc. Sheesh.






Jason Bourne rules. James Bond films.

[Bondian]

Well done CBn!.

Well, like you've said Guy's, it is bad news, but not altogether bad news!.

I agree with Athena, why not wait until 2007 and make it the best Bond of the double OO's?.

Well done Guy's I think you were the first on this.

Best Wishes,


Ian

[Athena007]

Well done Guy's I think you were the first on this.

CBn: Tomorrow's News Today

As for Tarl_Cabot's reaction... man, someone's pissed off. But what can you do. They've obviously already been ignoring Brosnan, so that's not their problem. I'm kinda thinking (trying to find the positive note) that perhaps more time will produce a better script... that is if they ditch those P&W puppets.

[Bondian]

CBn: Tomorrow's News Today

I like that line!.

As for Tarl_Cabot's reaction... man, someone's pissed off. But what can you do. They've obviously already been ignoring Brosnan, so that's not their problem. I'm kinda thinking (trying to find the positive note) that perhaps more time will produce a better script... that is if they ditch those P&W puppets.

This, I'll admit has made me feel sorry for Pierce, and it also confirms the news that CBn published several months ago.

I agree Athena about P&W, and maybe we'll get some good Hollywood Writers in like we had back in the old days.

I would like to see many changes on how they make these Bond films now, and maybe at last we'll get them.

Well done chaps,

Best Wishes,


Ian

[zencat]

[quote name='Bondian' date='29 September 2004 - 22:27'] Well done CBn!.

[TheSaint]

*&^%$#@!!!!!!!

Get off your lazy duffs and get the job done! Brosnan and make a Bond film!!!! Jesus! You people are pathetic!!! Cubby would be appalled at the lack of will....

God damnit I'm pissed! Make a Bond film!!!!! It's not that hard. Just get a decent script...no genetic mutilation...etc. Sheesh. 






Jason Bourne rules. James Bond films. 

I'm pissed too! This pretty much ruins the whole "let's introduce the new Bond actor in Bond 22 in 2007" scenario. You couldn't get better publicity than that.

I don't see why it's so difficult to get a director & actor in time for a 1/05 start-sign Brosnan for one more, promote Vic Armstrong to drector, done!

[Alex Zamudio]

It's not the fact that Brosnan with this delay will not return, is not the fact that all hopes for a Nov' 05 Bond 21 have been shattered, I'm very P.O. because we will have to wait another year for a new 007 movie, ANOTHER YEAR!!! I remember those times when every two years, or even every year a film was made, and they almost made a damn good film every time!

Lots of time doesn't necessary means a great film, DAD took more time than other Brosnan flicks, and was a mixed affair...

This, I'll admit has made me feel sorry for Pierce

bondian.

Don't feel sorry for Pierce, he is a handsome millionaire, with lots of work and movie projects coming up, feel sorry for me, a 007 fan, I'll have to wait a whole other year for a new 007 film!

Regards...


p.s. and please don't come up with those "Get a Life" posts, I have a great and cool life, but I enjoy new 007 films being made, the more frequent, the better!

[Bondian]

[quote name='zencat' date=' 29 September 2004 - 23:30']]Thank you, sir. Nice to bring our readers some real Bond 21 news. [/quote]
You're welcome zencat!.

[quote name='zencat']I expect there will be a bit of conversation about those choices of directors. Yikes! One wonders exactly why they couldn't make a deal with these guys. So much for that A-list that the Wall Street Journal gave us a while back.[/quote]
Yes, I was quite surprised at their alleged choice of Directors. And there wasn't a really big name among them

[quote name='zencat']But is it really because they couldn't find a director? Or does Sony want Bond 21 to be made outside that '05 period so they can be...involved? We'll see.[/quote]
I think you're right, it could of been a stipulation made by Sony?.


[quote name='Alex Zamudio' date=' 30 September 2004 - 00:29']It's not the fact that Brosnan with this delay will not return, is not the fact that all hopes for a Nov' 05 Bond 21 have been shattered, I'm very P.O. because we will have to wait another year for a new 007 movie, ANOTHER YEAR!!! I remember those times when every two years, or even every year a film was made, and they almost made a damn good film every time![/quote]
Believe it or not, I'm quite relaxed about this news. There's been something awfully wrong since last year, what with Pierce's comments and the silence from EON. I don't think we'll ever see the days again when we used to get a Bond flick every two years, it could be three or even four years between flicks. It could be Sony's policy now to make the audience wait longer for a new film, because too much of a good thing etc......

[quote name='Alex Zamudio']Lots of time doesn't necessary means a great film, DAD took more time than other Brosnan flicks, and was a mixed affair...[/quote]
I agree, but it's not production time we're talking here, it's length of time between flicks to pad out the audiences expectations.

[quote name='Alex Zamudio']Don't feel sorry for Pierce, he is a handsome millionaire, with lots of work and movie projects coming up,

[level007]

Putain de sa m

[Rolex]

As far as I am concerned its good news, it give more time to develop the script , look for a top notch director , nail down the right actor for Bond and get the sets and locations right.

[level007]

I woule love to believe you Rolex, but i am afraid this is not so sure.
Look at the list of director they had in mind....... I can't judge them because i didn't see their movies but we can't say that EON is looking for someone big.

Anyway, as usual, only time will tell.

[crashdrive]

Well, it seems Loomis was right. And I can't say I'm surprised. It's for the best that EON postpone Bond for another year under these circumstances. I desperately want another Bond film, but I'll rather wait another year than get a crappy Bond next year.

What I find interesting however are EON's choices to helm Bond 21. I never considered Vaughn for the simple reason that I wasn't aware of his directorial duties, but I did mention Paul McGuigan in the thread Who sould direct Bond 21?. EON really wants some fresh blood injected into the series it seems. And why not? It worked for GoldenEye, where Martin Campbell knew how to translate Bond for the 90s. I'm just curious whether these guys (Vaughn & McGuigan) didn't want to direct Bond 21, or that the studio wanted another veteran who they could trust with a huge franchise. Time will tell.

[M_Balje]

The only reasen,why i think that there is a change that we get 2006 is that Pierce Brosnan made 2 movie

[Loomis]

What I find interesting however are EON's choices to helm Bond 21. I never considered Vaughn for the simple reason that I wasn't aware of his directorial duties, but I did mention Paul McGuigan in the thread Who sould direct Bond 21?. EON really wants some fresh blood injected into the series it seems. And why not? It worked for GoldenEye, where Martin Campbell knew how to translate Bond for the 90s. I'm just curious whether these guys (Vaughn & McGuigan) didn't want to direct Bond 21, or that the studio wanted another veteran who they could trust with a huge franchise. Time will tell.

Matthew Vaughn is an astonishing choice, IMO.

Just 33 years old (had he directed BOND 21, he might have been younger than the guy playing 007!!!!!!!!), and best known as a producer (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS, SNATCH), he's what you might call a tabloid celebrity here in the UK, thanks to his marriage to Claudia Schiffer and his friendship with Guy Ritchie and Madonna (not sure how famous he is in the States - despite also being the son of Robert Vaughn, I'd guess he's not much of a celeb outside Britain).

He has only one directing credit, a London crime flick called LAYER CAKE, which I gather is about to open in the UK, or has just opened (caught the trailer on TV the other day) - I don't think it's opened anywhere else. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375912/

McGuigan is older than Vaughn (not much older, though - he's 41) and has directed more films (but not many more - the IMDb lists four feature credits; and he doesn't appear to have done anything at all in the film industry prior to 1998).

Well, they're both Brits (at least, I think Vaughn is a Brit - he was born in Beverly Hills), but they're certainly not in the Campbell/Spottiswoode/Apted class. Whatever happened to Eon's (unwritten) preference for "seasoned professionals", "jobbing" directors with decades of experience and everything on their CVs from BBC television dramas, and little-seen documentaries, to "worthy" British films, and minor Hollywood hits, and episodes of "The Sopranos" or whatever? Evidently, Eon's ideal candidate is no longer a 55-year-old Oxbridge graduate with a lengthy IMDb filmography, who'd worked with everyone from The Beatles and Sam Peckinpah to David Puttnam and Jennifer Lopez, establishing a solid reputation within "the industry" over many years while remaining largely unknown to the general public and never being acclaimed as an auteur.

A while back (and before the sale of MGM), I'd heard via someone "connected" that Eon had decided on a director for BOND 21 but MGM was in two minds about approving him. While the person who told me that did not know the name of that director, I strongly suspected (as did he) that it was Stephen Frears. I reckoned that MGM's reluctance sprang from Frears' age, as well as his lack of experience in action movies. More recently, with the rumours that the shortlist had been whittled down to two names, I felt that Frears was still in the running, along with someone more or less of his ilk - Roger Michell, perhaps, or Roland Joffe, someone like that (an "Aptedesque" choice, in other words).

But a relative newcomer, and Matthew Vaughn?!?!?!?! Wow, those Eon folk are full of surprises.

[Vodka Martino]

Oh man, say it ain't so! On the plus side, let's hope this gives Eon the opportunity to choose a good director and actor as well as (especially) a solid script to work with.
Ah well, back to "Everything or Nothing" on the PS2. Yes, I'm still going. What kind of Double-O agent are you, I here you ask?
It's been a while since I posted, gang. Hope you're all well. Take it easy.

Vodka

[Jim]

[quote name='M_Balje' date='30 September 2004 - 09:54'] The only reasen,why i think that there is a change that we get 2006 is that Pierce Brosnan made 2 movie

[Qwerty]

Well, this really isn't that big of a shock at all really. Look at what little we actually knew for certain. It's going to be quite a long wait once more for 2006 to roll along, hopefully they'll have quite a film to make up for it. I'm not sure, but I don't think they'd wait a whole year just to use the 2007 idea, but we'll see.

[The_Mole]

There's no news like bad news...

I suppose it gives them more time to make up for DAD.

El Salvador...?

Perhaps this is a good thing, no Bond till 2006. Which then misses the ideal 2007 year date.

It was a good idea calling for peace. Can't win 'em all...?

[Loomis]

But is it really because they couldn't find a director? Or does Sony want Bond 21 to be made outside that '05 period so they can be...involved?

The latter, definitely. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Directors are ten a penny - throw a brick in Hollywood and you'll hit at least three of 'em looking for work. Let's face it: finding a Bond director isn't anything remotely like as difficult as finding a new Bond - anyone can direct a Bond flick, since you don't need a visionary or a famous name.

Sony wants to stamp its authority over BOND 21, and is prepared to take as much time as necessary to ensure a picture it'll be happy with. No rush. The studio knows that audiences won't forget about James Bond and will still turn up to see his eventual return if no Bond film is released next year.

Here's a question, though: will the studio behind SPIDER-MAN seek to push Bond back into the really big league? Will Sony execs be looking at ways to ensure THUNDERBALL/Spidey-type grosses?

BTW, Tarl, I hope that THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM will be around in summer 2006 to show Bond how things should be done, but I'm pessimistic, having read something the other day (forget where, sorry) to the effect that Matt Damon has a very full schedule (and is apparently committed to a film with Scorsese, who's said to take an age doing things). Looks like BOURNE III could be many years away.

[Qwerty]

This is the thread to check out: Bond 21

[crashdrive]

They're certainly not in the Campbell/Spottiswoode/Apted class.

Vaughn definately isn't, but I do think McGuigan is. I think he's very much in the Campbell mold, who wasn't much older than McGuigan is now. Campbell only directed a couple of notable films before taking on Bond. The same goes for McGuigan. As for Vaughn, well, I'm not sure he's talented enough to direct a Bond, but I do think it's interesting to see that EON is looking at fresh talent. Didn't you write about a similar case a couple of years ago where EON wanted some up-and-coming director, but he refused? Hmm, still there's a big difference between looking at young directors and hiring one.

[Jim]

Sony wants to stamp its authority over BOND 21, and is prepared to take as much time as necessary to ensure a picture it'll be happy with. No rush. The studio knows that audiences won't forget about James Bond and will still turn up to see his eventual return if no Bond film is released next year.

True, true.

Wonder what the effect on message boards like this one will be? Time will tell.

[Loomis]

I think (McGuigan)'s very much in the Campbell mold, who wasn't much older than McGuigan is now. Campbell only directed a couple of notable films before taking on Bond. The same goes for McGuigan.

Well, unless the IMDb is mixing up two people with the same name, Campbell has been directing features since 1973 (it's true that he'd only done a couple of notable theatrical releases, though). He also did a great deal of work in television prior to GOLDENEYE, including directing the acclaimed 1985 miniseries "Edge of Darkness". By contrast, McGuigan (again, to judge by his IMDb filmography) seems to have worked in the biz for only six years. I know you're not trying to suggest that McGuigan's current position in the industry is an exact replica of Campbell's pre-GOLDENEYE, but I think Campbell had a great deal more experience when he was hired for Bond, and, as we've discussed many times, Eon seems (or, at any rate, prior to today, seemed) to value experience in potential Bond directors.

But, yes, I recall that story about the young British whizzkid who refused Bond (have a strong feeling now it might have been Jonathan Glazer, since I seem to remember that Guinness ad being mentioned); oh, I dunno, it's all Speculation City, isn't it?

[hrabb04]

Who would have thought that after witnessing the monstrousity that was Die Another Day, we would have to wait 4 yrs to find some kind of redemption for Agent oo7?

[Loomis]

Though if they're delaying it to 2006, why not just wait till 2007 (that -007 really is staring me in the face, if there's not a Bond movie that year, well that will just bum).

Well, who knows? They might delay it until 2007 - this new summer 2006 release date is hardly set in stone, after all. Still, I don't see why it would be that big a deal not to have a Bond film in 2007 - yes, yes, a 2007 release would allow for a cute marketing campaign (which the people at MGM, given their track record, would probably fumble anyway ), but I don't see any other advantage in delaying BOND 21 further.

So many questions, though.... does this delay make it less likely that Brosnan will return? Are the days of Eon's almost complete control of Bond over? Will Purvis and Wade be quietly dropped over the next few months? Will Michael G. Wilson (and Vic Armstrong, Peter Lamont, etc.) have retired by the time the next 007 outing hits screens? Are all bets off regarding who'll direct BOND 21? Will BOND 21 not really be BOND 21 at all, but rather a BATMAN BEGINS-style "rebooting" of the series (Hugh Jackman as Commie-battling 1960s spy James Bond, or something like that)?

[Loomis]

Matthew Vaughn, though. What a strange, strange, strange, strange choice. Sorry if I'm spamming, but I just had to pop back in here and make that point again.

But what do I know? Maybe LAYER CAKE is brilliant. Perhaps Vaughn knows Barbara Broccoli socially and managed to convince her that he'd be the absolutely perfect choice to direct BOND 21. But I think I'd have been less surprised to read of Vaughn being considered to play 007 than I was to read of him being one of the people in the frame to direct the next Bond flick!

Anyway, here's Empire's report:
http://www.empireonl...p?news_id=16223

[Arrant]

I agree with you Loomis. No wonder you keep coming back to it, the two named choices of possible directors are way, way off the usual Eon radar.

More than the news of the delay (which even I had come to accept was now inevitable) it's the named directors that has really put the cat among the pigeons.

Is this Eon about to dive head first into the "youth" market?. It looks as if they are looking at the "new" generation of British directors, as in the Guy Richie mould.

Could we indeed be looking at a "Bond Year One" revamp of the whole series ?

I've no doubt Sony will be considering it, were Eon already ahead of them?

If so we could be looking at a much younger Bond actor than anyone anticipated.

It raises a host of questions, some of which you have touched on. Will this be Eon bowing out gracefully and handing the whole franchise to Sony.

I think we can also consider Brosnan as having had his Licence Revoked as well. The whole timing is now working against him returning. That twisted knee on the DAD set has had some really serious repercussions.

Layer Cake eh? Must be one hell of a debut!