97 replies to this topic

[Hockey Mask]

Skyfall's success and Craig's age are the only things working in favor of this coming out sooner than 3 years. Maybe it will be enough.

[Napoleon Solo]

In 2010, when MGM was in bankruptcy, it had to file a business plan (that was subject to court approval). Part of the business plan specifically said MGM intended to get the Bond movies back on an every-other-year schedule. Bond 23 would be in 2012, Bond 24 in '14, Bond 25 in '16.

 

By November 2012, the MGM CEO said he was "hopeful" that Bond 24 would be out in 2014 but it'd be out in '15 at the latest. He also said "we want to put our best foot forward" on the script. This was on an investor call and Barber also confirmed that John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24 and Bond 25. (I listened to a replay of the call on MGM's Web stie at the time). 

 

On this week's call, Barber was less specific, with his "within three years" language. I listened to that replay also.

[Shrublands]

As I understand it, the every-two-year Bond stuff was mentioned in a statement to investors around the time of the bankruptcy proceedings, (a sort of statement of intent) but no mention of anything relating to Bond was put before the court. 

 

In fact, a number of commentators who went through things in some detail were surprised to see that Bond had not even been listed as an MGM asset. 

[FlemingBond]

the next Bond they pick better be 30 years old, because at this rate it's going to take 15 years to get 5-CraigBond films out.

[Napoleon Solo]

MGM said it in court papers filed in bankruptcy court. It was part of the business plan. However, there was one major adjustment after emerging from bankruptcy. In the original court papers, MGM said Bond 23 would be co-financed with a partner, but that it intended to finance and distribute the series from Bond 24 onwards. That was before MGM and Sony reached agreement on what would become Skyfall, and the two have extended that agreement to other 007 movies.

[Shrublands]

MGM said it in court papers filed in bankruptcy court. It was part of the business plan. However, there was one major adjustment after emerging from bankruptcy. In the original court papers, MGM said Bond 23 would be co-financed with a partner, but that it intended to finance and distribute the series from Bond 24 onwards. That was before MGM and Sony reached agreement on what would become Skyfall, and the two have extended that agreement to other 007 movies.

 

Link?

[Dustin]

MGM also promised numerous new projects - both film and TV - to avoid the unfortunate dependency on just one asset, Bond, which was what in effect strangled the old MGM. Splendid plan, worked fine so far...

[thecasinoroyale]

As long as they can convince us and the media that Bond will return on a set time, like a certian 3 year gap instead of this constant uncertainty and random gaps between films which speculates there is something wrong, that will go in their favour. Althought I suppose they can't really start that until Bond 25 to try hit a 3 year gap again, or whatever the gap is from 'Skyfall' to Bond 24.

[SecretAgentFan]

With the next two "Hobbits" about to clean up for MGM this and next year, they probably do not need BOND 24 before 2015.

 

I do. But who cares about me?

[Shrublands]

As long as they can convince us and the media that Bond will return on a set time, like a certian 3 year gap instead of this constant uncertainty and random gaps between films which speculates there is something wrong, that will go in their favour. Althought I suppose they can't really start that until Bond 25 to try hit a 3 year gap again, or whatever the gap is from 'Skyfall' to Bond 24.

 

I see what you mean. But you could also argue that the uncertainty as to When? makes them seem less churned out and more special.

 

Less like a bus - Missed it, oh never mind, there’ll be another along soon, just look at the timetable.

[Napoleon Solo]

MGM said it in court papers filed in bankruptcy court. It was part of the business plan. However, there was one major adjustment after emerging from bankruptcy. In the original court papers, MGM said Bond 23 would be co-financed with a partner, but that it intended to finance and distribute the series from Bond 24 onwards. That was before MGM and Sony reached agreement on what would become Skyfall, and the two have extended that agreement to other 007 movies.

 

Link?

Nov. 3, 2010

 

http://www.bloomberg...e-takeover.html

6th paragraph.

 

//New James Bond films may be released every second year starting in November 2012, MGM said. It aims to own 50 percent of Bond 23, due out that year, with an equal partner paying all of the production costs, it said. Later Bond movies would be wholly owned and funded by MGM, the company said.//

 

From a story about the bankruptcy filing.

 

[RMc2]

With the next two "Hobbits" about to clean up for MGM this and next year, they probably do not need BOND 24 before 2015.

 

I do. But who cares about me?

 

 

 

 

I see what you mean. But you could also argue that the uncertainty as to When? makes them seem less churned out and more special.

 

Less like a bus - Missed it, oh never mind, there’ll be another along soon, just look at the timetable.

 

 

Excellent points, chums. I'd like Bond 24 sooner rather than later, but am taking today's wishy-washy statement as a positive sign they aren't shoving Bond into the money making machine of cynicism just yet.

[Walecs]

With the next two "Hobbits" about to clean up for MGM this and next year, they probably do not need BOND 24 before 2015.

 

I do. But who cares about me?

 

I do.

 

And I don't think Bond 24 will come out after 2015.

[Shrublands]

 

MGM said it in court papers filed in bankruptcy court. It was part of the business plan. However, there was one major adjustment after emerging from bankruptcy. In the original court papers, MGM said Bond 23 would be co-financed with a partner, but that it intended to finance and distribute the series from Bond 24 onwards. That was before MGM and Sony reached agreement on what would become Skyfall, and the two have extended that agreement to other 007 movies.

 

Link?

Nov. 3, 2010

 

http://www.bloomberg...e-takeover.html

6th paragraph.

 

//New James Bond films may be released every second year starting in November 2012, MGM said. It aims to own 50 percent of Bond 23, due out that year, with an equal partner paying all of the production costs, it said. Later Bond movies would be wholly owned and funded by MGM, the company said.//

 

From a story about the bankruptcy filing.

 

 

 

Yes, that's a story about MGM and the bankruptcy. But, the included paragraph relating to James Bond is not a quote from papers submitted to the court, (and nowhere does it say that it is)

It's from information put out by MGM as a non-binding statement of intent for the media and investors.

[Shrublands]

[The Shark]

 

 

Said whaaaat?

[Dustin]

Was that a bug in the quoting routine? Or just a slip?

[Shrublands]

 

 

 

Said whaaaat?

 

I was simply trying to say...

Was that a bug in the quoting routine? Or just a slip?

 

Don't know, I got a double post and attempted to get rid of one, probably my mistake.

[col_007]

It's rather a head scratcher you would think after skyfall's success they would want the next one out asap ???

[FutureJamesBond]

Ugh...

 

I really don't want to wait that long. I get that if we wait longer, we'll probably get a better film, but the thought of that being released so far from now is killing me. 2016? The gap between Quantum and Skyfall seemed like forever, so I have no doubt this will feel the same way. 

 

I really hope they can get this out by mid-to-late 2015 so we all don't have to wait AS long for our new Bond adventure. 

[Matt_13]

We'll certainly see it before 2016. The more I think about it, though, the more it seems likely that 2014 is just a tad too soon to have another film ready to go. A lot of this will depend on exactly how soon we get word of a new director. A few weeks ago Barbara and Michael stated that they had yet to begin their search for someone to replace Sam. In a perfect world, we'd have a new director by June. We'll see how that pans out.

[JohnnyWalker]

I think people are taking this too literally. But don't actually know.

[S K Y F A L L]

Geez, these producers are so lazy; to busy counting money and lifting their wallets? No but seriously its discouraging news, after waiting 4 years for SF and then it having a 'Bat-Man' like ending leaving you wanting more. I suppose even The Dark Knight came out 3 years after Bat-Man Begins. I hate reading about the producers complaining about how 'exhausted' they are after a film, like please. Dare I say it; perhaps its time for the studio to take over or people who can handle the work load of being paid millions to have like the best jobs. 

That's my 2 cents in a frustrating rant of nothingness. 

[Professor Pi]

In the last 14 years, they've only been able to put out one movie two years later.  Otherwise, it's been 3 years, or 4 years (twice!)  If it is not to be until 2015, can they at least film two back to back?  Because since 1989, their average has been a little over 3 years, 23 years for 7 films.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m afraid the longer gaps are probably the only way to sustain a series of such longevity.

 

Not because EON is so lazy or too preoccupied with counting money.

 

The financing of a Bond movie has become too complicated since such a production needs about 200 million dollars. Which sounds absurd - but considering the costs of mounting such an endeavour, the inflation etc.

 

Also, as SKYFALL seems to have proven: world wide audiences do react favorably towards Bond when they do not get one every two years. It has to become an event, something that they one can look forward to, not something you can watch or not (what, another Bond already? Geez...)

 

For the fans, that´s bad news. But in the long run this will only help.

 

Of course, the fans could argue that they would love to see a Bond film with a much tighter budget, thus a film that does not need to be a gigantic hit. What about Bond movies that only cost 50-80 million dollars? Wouldn´t that work even better? Well, in today´s money that would mean a drastic cut to the use of stunts, location and also less expensive casting and crew. Would the fans still love it? Probably. World wide audiences? Probably not, since they are accustomed to the big money blockbuster extravaganzas.

 

In the 60´s, Bond did not have serious competition. In the 70´s the competition was rising. In the 80´s it already threatened Bond. In the 90´s Bond had to play in that league so that he could still compete with the others. And that situation has not changed.

[coco1997]

Craig's going to start looking old really fast. At this rate he'll be well over 50 by the time Bond 25 comes around.

[PPK_19]

Craig's going to start looking old really fast. 

 

Start? He only just carried it off in Skyfall, he already looks older than he is. 

 

And i agree with SAF, the longer gap would be better. Take a look at the game series Call of Duty. One released every year and it's pretty much the same very time, people are sick of it.

 

Having a Bond film as an 'event' is much better. So if we have to wait 3 years for Bond 24, so be it.

[Dustin]

Well, Craig was meant to look a little worse for wear in SKYFALL. I'm not sure how close his face is to his real looks, but I suppose you could likewise cut down a few months from his image, if so desired.

[RMc2]

Well, Craig was meant to look a little worse for wear in SKYFALL. I'm not sure how close his face is to his real looks, but I suppose you could likewise cut down a few months from his image, if so desired.

 

It's an old and practiced art in Hollywood, making stars look younger than they are. On the other hand, Craig is famously craggy and I think SF wasn't a massive exaggeration of his looks - digital photography is notorious for exposing actor's worst features. Point being, by the time they get round to filming Bond 24, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually looks like the 'aged' look they gave him in SF, and knocking a few months off with make up and lighting will still make him look mid 40s...which isn't a problem for most actors, but for Craig's features isn't very helpful.

 

I'm sure they won't try any silly digital airbrushing, but you never know.

 

As an aside, I went to see SF with a group of girl friends (note the space, I'm sadly not that big a stud) and I asked them afterwards what they thought of Craig's looks, and all but one of them said he looked like an attractive dad. Not even a DILF, just a 40 year old man in good shape. The one who said different was fixated on his torso, and didn't mention anything else...

[PPK_19]

I was reading the London Metro on the way in to work today, they had a snippet on Bond 24.

 

It said 'The next James Bond film is set to be released in 2016', 'a director is expected to be announced soon' etc.

 

Seems like they took the 'within the next three years' literally. 2015 is still my bet!