366 replies to this topic

[Moomoo]

Perhaps the most compelling reason why Bond 21 will be delayed is the sale of MGM. I was told at the end of last year Bond 21 is scheduled for summer 2006, with Jackman in the lead. It's highly likely MGM knew about Sony's plans to buy the company a long time ago and were prepared to delay production of Bond 21 until the deal was done.

If Sony or Time Warner own MGM it makes little sense for them to rush Bond 21 into production. The acquisition of MGM may not happen until the fall or winter and Sony/Time Warner's accountants will want to take stock and see just how profitable MGM is. This could delay all future MGM film projects. It also makes sense for Sony or Time Warner to have as much of a monopoly over summer releases as is possible. If Time Warner have, say, Harry Potter 4 and Bond 21 out in summer 2006, they make double the profit.

It could be as simple as this: MGM have to sell to a larger studio in order to survive and this sale necessitates a four year delay for Bond 21. By that time, a new Bond actor would be seen as beneficial to the franchise.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 08 July 2004 - 09:40 AM.

[Agent 76]

I'm starting to predict another big gap between Bond movies , just like 89/95.

[Loomis]

So, if BOND 21 is going to be released in November 2005, expect the announcement of a director either later this month or early next month. If August comes and goes without a director for BOND 21 being announced, we'll know for certain that there will be no BOND 21 next year and that what you, Moomoo, were told is true. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a clear cut as that Loomis. As release information about Bond films can change slightly, while it would make sense to announce if the 2005 date is true, I don't think it would rule it out if not.

Perhaps you're right. Okay, let's say that if September comes and goes without the announcement of a director, we'll know that we should forget about BOND 21 in 2005 (although September would, IMO, be pretty darn late for the announcement of the director of a major production supposedly appearing in cinemas the following November).

I don't know which month saw the announcement of Spottiswoode for TND (I've a vague feeling it was a late announcement, but I may be wrong), but I'm pretty sure that Martin Campbell was named as the GOLDENEYE director in the summer of 1994.

We're told (although there's no judging the reliability of the sources) that BOND 21 will be a November 2005 release. DAD was a November 2002 release - its director was announced in July 2001. TWINE was a November 1999 release - its director was announced in (early) August 1998.

So, if there is indeed going to be a Bond film next year, expect to know the name of its director very soon. If no name is revealed, well, ask yourself this: Okay, we're told that BOND 21 is coming out next November, but, wait, who exactly is going to direct the bugger? And then the awful truth will hit you!

Obviously, they don't release this director info just to make us fanboys happy. It starts as industry news, reported in Variety. By announcing a name, this month or next month, they wouldn't be doing a special favour to Bond geeks. They'd simply be letting the film community and the business world know for sure that BOND 21 was going to happen, and was on schedule. It's the way they've done things for at least a decade now, and the way many others do things (it's hardly unusual for the director of a major Hollywood project to be officially announced more than a year before the finished film is scheduled to hit screens).

They'd have nothing to lose by naming the BOND 21 director now, and everything to gain. And if no one is named in the very near future, it won't just be fanboys such as yours truly who'll notice the failure to make an announcement. Hollywood and corporate sponsors will know that there will certainly be no new Bond film next year.

Like I say, we'll very shortly know whether Moomoo is correct in claiming that BOND 21 is scheduled for a summer 2006 release rather than a November 2005 release.

[Qwerty]

So, if BOND 21 is going to be released in November 2005, expect the announcement of a director either later this month or early next month. If August comes and goes without a director for BOND 21 being announced, we'll know for certain that there will be no BOND 21 next year and that what you, Moomoo, were told is true. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it's a clear cut as that Loomis. As release information about Bond films can change slightly, while it would make sense to announce if the 2005 date is true, I don't think it would rule it out if not.

Perhaps you're right. Okay, let's say that if September comes and goes without the announcement of a director, we'll know that we should forget about BOND 21 in 2005 (although September would, IMO, be pretty darn late for the announcement of the director of a major production supposedly appearing in cinemas the following November).

Perhaps. I just think it's next to impossible to choose a month for them as a deadline to know whether this will become a 2005 or 2006 release. They could a little 'cramming' for a 2005.

But I expect some news hopefully about this later this Summer.

[Seannery]

There's lots of King Arthur reviews at rottentomatoes. Almost as bad as for Van Helsing and similarly the blame's being directed towards the director rather than the lead actor. Ioan Gruffudd doesn't get off as easily and several of the reviewers think that Keira Knightley is the best thing about the film. It sounds like it will have a tough time at the Box Office against Spiderman 2 and the rest.

No idea if this makes any difference to who plays Bond. Is it better to play safe with Brosnan or to put off Bond 21 until they find a good alternative*?

*Assumes Jackman not available, Owen not box office worthy, Gruffudd disappointing and the others not serious contenders.

Daltonfan your theory that it comes down to Pierce or will be delayed is based on uncertain assumptions that very well might not be true and then your argument would evaporate.


I agree with Qwerty that there is no set panic date for an announcement that says the movie will be automatically pushed back. The script has been worked on for some time and casting can come later. They just recently emphasized a November release again. If they had a Bond actor set, there would be no reason not to announce it even if the rest of the cast was not set. I would think you could wait to October or even November to announce the actor and still not have a delayed movie. Most likely of course it won't take that long.

Edited by Seannery, 08 July 2004 - 02:58 PM.

[Loomis]

Perhaps. I just think it's next to impossible to choose a month for them as a deadline to know whether this will become a 2005 or 2006 release. They could a little 'cramming' for a 2005.

I'm looking at established precedent. What's announced, or not announced, over the next few weeks will be very telling.

[Seannery]

Well there is some logic to that Loomis, but you can't always go by the past and there is some flexibility.

Loomis are you predicting that if there is no announcement within the next 3 weeks that Bond 21 will be delayed until summer 2006?

[Qwerty]

Perhaps. I just think it's next to impossible to choose a month for them as a deadline to know whether this will become a 2005 or 2006 release. They could a little 'cramming' for a 2005.

I'm looking at established precedent. What's announced, or not announced, over the next few weeks will be very telling.

Certainly understand there. I would hope to see something released as far as information goes in these next few weeks/months. I don't think it has to be for a 2005 release, but it would seem likely.

[Loomis]

Loomis are you predicting that if there is no announcement within the next 3 weeks that Bond 21 will be delayed until summer 2006?

If no director has been announced by the end of September at the very latest, then we should assume that there will be no Bond film next year. But the end of September would really be pushing it, IMO: if an announcement is not made by the middle of August, I personally will be satisfied that there will be no BOND 21 in 2005.

It's very simple: if BOND 21 is going to hit screens in November 2005, shooting must start round about January. But before that there must be a few months of preproduction, during which the input of a director is crucial. If BOND 21 will indeed be released next November, then I'd almost bet my life that a director is already signed as I type these words. Yes, I guess in theory they could wait until the end of this year to sign a director (but why wait until the time for preproduction narrows to practically nothing before signing a director? Where's the sense in that?). Not only would that be cutting it horribly fine, but waiting until the last possible moment before announcing a director would also cause tongues to wag in Hollywood (as opposed to just within the internet fan community) that BOND 21 was a picture in trouble.

Of course, they could strive to keep a lid on the BOND 21 director's identity until the eleventh hour.... but what would be the point? It's not as though revealing a name would blow plot information, and news on cast and locations, etc. With the last few Bond flicks, we knew the director's name long before we knew anything else, and no one involved with the film suffered because we had that knowledge.

As I've stated, announcing a director isn't just a matter of a simple nicety, a favour to the info-hungry fans - it's an item of business news for the film industry, without which no one in Hollywood will entertain the idea that BOND 21 is being made. And, my friends, if the rumours of a November 2005 release for BOND 21 are "for real", the time for that item of business news is right about now.

Cast-iron confirmation will come over the next few weeks as to whether BOND 21 will be with us next year or not. If a director is announced, we'll know it's happening. If a director isn't announced, we'll know it isn't, and all the wishful thinking in the world won't change that. It's that simple.

[luciusgore]

You're right. In July of 2001 we knew who the director of Bond 20 was -- Lee Tamahori:

http://www.ianflemin...0director.shtml

At this point we don't even know who is playing James Bond. Brosnan may be right that a sense of paralysis has set in.

[Mister Asterix]

You're right. In July of 2001 we knew who the director of Bond 20 was -- Lee Tamahori:

http://www.ianflemin...0director.shtml

At  this point we don't even know who is playing James Bond. Brosnan may be right that a sense of paralysis has set in.

That article from 30 July, 2001 proves that there is yet no danger of not making the date because there is no announcement yet. In fact, the update shows that LT was not announced until 24 August, 2001. I don

[Loomis]

AICN announced Tamahori as the director of BOND 20 on 30 July 2001. Now, okay, maybe official confirmation from MGM/Eon came later, but the point is that his name was out there in July. And Apted was known to be the director of BOND 21 only a few days into August 1998.

[Qwerty]

AICN announced Tamahori as the director of BOND 20 on 30 July 2001. Now, okay, maybe official confirmation from MGM/Eon came later, but the point is that his name was out there in July. And Apted was known to be the director of BOND 21 only a few days into August 1998.

So then it's likely, but not guarenteed that we'll need to know that information come this August.

[Loomis]

It's guaranteed that if there exists a director for BOND 21, his name will be known to the public very soon. By "very soon", I don't mean by the end of this year, or by early October - I mean, within the next few weeks.

However, if no director has been announced by the end of September at the very latest, then we should assume that there will be no Bond film next year. But the end of September would really be pushing it, IMO: if an announcement is not made by the middle of August, I personally will be satisfied that there will be no BOND 21 in 2005.

[Qwerty]

It's guaranteed that if there exists a director for BOND 21, his name will be known to the public very soon.

However, if no director has been announced by the end of September at the very latest, then we should assume that there will be no Bond film next year. But the end of September would really be pushing it, IMO: if an announcement is not made by the middle of August, I personally will be satisfied that there will be no BOND 21 in 2005.

Assume it, perhaps. But I wouldn't bet it all on that. I'm thinking we'll get the info in August, and know soon enough.

[Mister Asterix]

So the question becomes whether they will announce the director at the same time they announce the actor playing Bond. It seems like the sensible way to do it, but I

[Qwerty]

It may be that they are, or will be, delaying any director announcement until they are ready to make a Bond announcement.

Perhaps they are considering one large news release of information regarding Bond 21. That would be a bit of a change, but one I could see working. Bond and the director, along with a release date given. Be nice to learn that by the end of this Summer.

[Agent 76]

Perhaps they are considering one large news release of information regarding Bond 21.

really hope so...

[Qwerty]

Perhaps they are considering one large news release of information regarding Bond 21.

really hope so...

I don't really mind if they release it all at once or not, just soon enough.

[hoodman22]

seannery and moomoo are both bull[censored]ting. i know this because the decision of who is bond has nothing to do with MGM, its Eon, the production company that says who makes it.

Adrian Paul doesn't have a chance, hes a has-been with limited acting range.

Ioan Gruffud will have to make a lot more press for his chance, he has nothing except a forgettable role in King Arthur, which turned out to be a flop, according to box office estimates for yesterday, making less than 5 million for a 110 million production budget, not to mention marketing cost. I figure Seannery only mentioned him because he liked him in King Arthur

As for Colin Firth, he's a good actor, but anyone who thinks he'd make an action star should be locked up in a straight jacket for the rest of their life, that would just be completely out of place. like making Phillip Seymour Hoffman the next Batman

Owen and Jackman would have a chance, but they both deny being approached and what reason do they have for lying?

I saw King Arthur yesterday, and i didnt think much of it, but Owen was good, i think he would be good. Jackman doesnt have the presence

[Bryan Harris]

If Sony or Time Warner own MGM it makes little sense for them to rush Bond 21 into production. The acquisition of MGM may not happen until the fall or winter and Sony/Time Warner's accountants will want to take stock and see just how profitable MGM is. This could delay all future MGM film projects. It also makes sense for Sony or Time Warner to have as much of a monopoly over summer releases as is possible. If Time Warner have, say, Harry Potter 4 and Bond 21 out in summer 2006, they make double the profit. 

Hmm. Then again, couldn't the obverse be true? Wouldn't MGM's buyer be in a hurry to put out Bond 21 both for the anticipated revenue and the PR benefit of having MGM's primary moneymaker out earning as soon as possible? Not to mention that MGM's back catalog is supposedly one of its major selling points, and a new Bond film serves as a promotional spur to the home video sales of the rest of the series (case in point: the release of the remastered DVDs is scheduled for October '05, a month from the putative release date of B21).

The schedule could certainly be moved back, of course, but I imagine that the longer the next Bond film is delayed, the more anxious the stakeholders would become...

[kovit123]

Hoodman22, you don't know anything about the 007 material, and most of all Owen denies it and he's telling the truth, he have no interest as 007, and it wasn't dream to be, it was just rumors. Owen have no chance to be 007.

Jackman will be 007 period.

[Moomoo]

I'm afraid the truth would appear to be this:

The only way Hugh Jackman won't be Bond is for a complete unknown to appear with perfect Bond looks, be the right age, be English, can act but is yet to be a star, and impress EON/MGM so much they hire him. It's extremely unlikely such an actor (or wannabe actor) exists but you never know.

If Bond 21 is delayed and begins shooting in summer 2005, we still have a year to find a new Bond. If someone came along that was so impressive, it's possible EON would buy out Jackman's contract (I was told he signed up for the role) and go with the new guy. Despite Jackman's obvious enthusiasm for the Bond role, he doesn't really need Bond. He's becoming a big enough star in his own right.

Deep down EON/MGM don't need 'Wolverine/Van Helsing' as the new Bond. Deep down there must be a few concerns. Sure, Jackman is box-office friendly and has a growing fan-base, and that must be the overriding reason why MGM want him, but I'm sure it'd be more beneficial to hire an actor with less baggage. The fact is many movie fans will see Jackman as Bond and compare him to Wolverine. It will happen no matter how good an actor Jackman is. That's why, in my opinion, Jackman will always be a second-choice Bond. I'm convinced Jackman is Bond by default - because there are no credible alternatives.

But we still have time. I believe EON should continue searching for an unknown, even if that unknown is a former model, or in another profession. If they found the right man, was given extensive acting lessons and convinced in the role, we would have our new Bond. I say EON should continue the search.

Moomoo

[Martin Mystery]

I'm afraid the truth would appear to be this:

The only way Hugh Jackman won't be Bond is for a complete unknown to appear with perfect Bond looks, be the right age, be English, can act but is yet to be a star, and impress EON/MGM so much they hire him. It's extremely unlikely such an actor (or wannabe actor) exists but you never know.

If Bond 21 is delayed and begins shooting in summer 2005, we still have a year to find a new Bond. If someone came along that was so impressive, it's possible EON would buy out Jackman's contract (I was told he signed up for the role) and go with the new guy. Despite Jackman's obvious enthusiasm for the Bond role, he doesn't really need Bond. He's becoming a big enough star in his own right.

Deep down EON/MGM don't need 'Wolverine/Van Helsing' as the new Bond. Deep down there must be a few concerns. Sure, Jackman is box-office friendly and has a growing fan-base, and that must be the overriding reason why MGM want him, but I'm sure it'd be more beneficial to hire an actor with less baggage. The fact is many movie fans will see Jackman as Bond and compare him to Wolverine. It will happen no matter how good an actor Jackman is. That's why, in my opinion, Jackman will always be a second-choice Bond. I'm convinced Jackman is Bond by default - because there are no credible alternatives.

But we still have time. I believe EON should continue searching for an unknown, even if that unknown is a former model, or in another profession. If they found the right man, was given extensive acting lessons and convinced in the role, we would have our new Bond. I say EON should continue the search.

Moomoo

Moomoo/Scojo:
Seems to me you're trying to create an 'escape route'. It won't work, though. When the next Bond is announced - and it turns out his name is not Hugh Jackman - you will have zero credibility here, and on MKKBB, MI6.co.uk and alt.fan.james-bond.

Edited by Martin Mystery, 09 July 2004 - 11:31 AM.

[Loomis]

All this "next Bond" speculation is fine and dandy, but a director announcement in the very, very near future (this month or next month, to be precise), or lack thereof, will tell us whether BOND 21 is happening for next year or not. Obviously, if they do announce a director, we can be sure that a Bond actor will fall into place.

But perhaps there's little point in worrying about who the Bond actor will be/is before we've had confirmation that BOND 21 is actually going to be made.

[Moomoo]

LOL - hey if it isn't Hugh Jackman, then who is it going to be? It's not as if there are loads of contenders out there!

It comes down to three choices:

Brosnan

Jackman

Unknown

Even if you choose to ignore my comments about Jackman already signed up, I can't see anyone but Jackman in the role. If I really try hard I can just about imagine an older looking Jude Law as Bond. He looks too youthful at present but he seems the only UK actor who has the refined Bond 'quality'. Maybe in ten years time he'd look the part? Perhaps.

In my heart I believe the new Bond should be an unknown Englishman, I am convinced of that. But it's not going to happen. There are no little known or unknown actors out there who fit the bill. I can't think of one. So we're stuck with Jackman.

Moomoo

[Qwerty]

There are no little known or unknown actors out there who fit the bill. I can't think of one. So we're stuck with Jackman.

Unless of course Brosnan comes back, which is entirely possible I think. I believe you've often said you're 99% sure he is out from what your source has mentioned.

[Lady M]

Sorry I like Hugh Jackman fine.....but I still think you all are giving Adrian Paul way too little credit.

I was reading some of the fanfic and such about Bond and I have seen several of the movies....it's amazing how much some of the Highlander's attributes fit into the Bond role.


Lady M

[Moomoo]

Something weird is happening on this site. What is with this sudden interest in Adrian Paul? I never heard his name mentioned in 1994, it was Brosnan all the way back then, and I never heard his name mentioned as a possible Bond until the last few months. I got nothing against the guy, he's made a career in acting and good luck to him, it's a very tough profession, but if he's now seen as one of the main contenders I feel a little depressed. I've seen a few glimpses of Paul in Highlander, very few I confess, but he's never once struck me as potential Bond material. Just can't see it.

Can someone please end this once and for all. Is Adrian Paul a genuine candidate, does he have the right stuff to be a convincing Bond, or is it just his fan club trying to promote him? I fear it's the latter but people are welcome to convince me otherwise.

Moomoo - not in the Adrian Paul fan club

[Loomis]

Is Adrian Paul a genuine candidate, does he have the right stuff to be a convincing Bond,

No.

or is it just his fan club trying to promote him?

Yes. Just look at that recent poll of ours, flooded by Adrian Paul fans who joined CBn just to vote in it. Paul fans have even admitted on their own sites that they're pursuing a strategy of infiltration into Bond sites in order to promote their man.

Of course, Adrian Paul fans have just as much right to post here as anyone else, and it's hardly unthinkable that people who like Paul are also quite genuinely into Bond. I don't wish to sound nasty here, and I'm not trying to make Paul fans feel unwelcome, but they themselves have admitted what they're up to.

But it's not just Paul fans. Because of the "will he?/won't he?" surrounding Brosnan and BOND 21, it almost seems as though virtually every British actor under 50 is being touted as a potential Bond. Bloom, Butler, Firth, Jackman, Owen, Paul, and several others.... they've all been getting a lot of publicity of late thanks to the uncertainty over the future of the Bond franchise, even though there's really only one realistic candidate: Jackman.