91 replies to this topic

[Lionheart]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Bond 22' Pushed To 7 November 2008 Release

_{May release reportedly dropped; back to standard two year break}

Check out this rather depressing article from SuperheroHype!

Bond 22 Targeting Nov. 7, 2008
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
September 1, 2006

Columbia Pictures has moved James Bond 22 -- the yet-to-be-named film that will be produced after November's Casino Royale -- to Nov. 7, 2008, rather than the original date of May 2, 2008, where it was in competition with Jon Favreau's Iron Man adaptation.

Sony Pictures Entertainment vice chairman Jeff Blake told The Hollywood Reporter that the studio, along with partners MGM and British production company EON Prods., are in talks to bring on a new director after Roger Michell (Notting Hill) bowed out of the project.

The new date also gives the filmmakers the standard two years to complete the next film -- the usual time between Bond movies.

"Eighteen months was a very short window," Blake said. "We're going to stay the course."

Daniel Craig will star as 007 in the 22nd Bond film as well.

[Jim]

I fear this will descend into yet more "completely accurate box office impact analysis" / "they are running scared because they have cast a deformed goblin" / "horrendously boring guesswork" very soon.

[Clopin]

There goes the summer release. Seems they still don't have the script and a new director in place...

[triviachamp]

Uh oh!

[pieffra]

I think they're afraid to clash with other big blockbusters like IRON MAN, and prefer to have a release date in a quite period.

[marktmurphy]

Oh well; shame we have to wait a bit longer, but no tragedy I suppose.

[SecretAgentFan]

I fear this will descend into yet more "completely accurate box office impact analysis" / "horrendously boring guesswork" very soon.

I fear the same, Jim.

... and here I start: My take is, the early summer date was born out of enthusiasm for "CR" and Craig

[Bond#9-GeorgeKemp]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='598433' date='1 September 2006 - 10:15']
[quote name='Jim' post='598395' date='1 September 2006 - 07:34']
I fear this will descend into yet more "completely accurate box office impact analysis" / "horrendously boring guesswork" very soon.
[/quote]

I fear the same, Jim.

... and here I start: My take is, the early summer date was born out of enthusiasm for "CR" and Craig

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='598433' date='1 September 2006 - 02:15']
[quote name='Jim' post='598395' date='1 September 2006 - 07:34']
I fear this will descend into yet more "completely accurate box office impact analysis" / "horrendously boring guesswork" very soon.
[/quote]

I fear the same, Jim.

... and here I start: My take is, the early summer date was born out of enthusiasm for "CR" and Craig

[Robert Watts]

I don't care, it just means 2008 as a whole is the year of Bond, instead of just May

[Qwerty]

I see this is coming from the Hollywood Reporter, but is this actually confirmed?

[Vauxhall]

It sounds like quite a reliable piece of information which seems a shame. I imagine that confirmation would come in the form of another press release from EON/Sony. Will be interesting to see what reasons they give officially - doubt they'd admit they're running scared of another movie.

[Johnboy007]

I can't imagine they're scared of "Iron Man"; it will probably be another crappy comic book adaptation that bombs horribly. They probably don't have a director and a finished script and thought this was a better excuse.

[DLibrasnow]

It sounds like quite a reliable piece of information which seems a shame. I imagine that confirmation would come in the form of another press release from EON/Sony. Will be interesting to see what reasons they give officially - doubt they'd admit they're running scared of another movie.

Maybe they are less than enthused with the finished product in Casino Royale and are having to rethink their strategy. That seems the most logical explanation.

[doublenoughtspy]

I always thought May was a little too ambitious.

[I never miss]

I've no problem with this - I think that Bond 22 will probably be a better picture as a result of waiting. I believe that this extra six months has no bearing on how Sony regard CR and it's quality: they've simply lost a vital cog in the Bond 22 production and are sensibly putting things on hold. I think that Bond 22 will make more money with a Nov 08 release date too.

Anybody that's too disappointed should really get a grip - after all, we have a new Bond film just two and a half months away, and this will give us plenty to discuss.

[Loomis]

I'm gutted that BOND 22 isn't going to be a summer movie.

It's not that I wanted to watch the followup to CASINO ROYALE at the earliest possible opportunity (although, of course, I did, and I'm sure you did, too ), but I really loved the news that Bond would be summer fare again. It doesn't belong in the cold winter months. Very disappointing. Bond was back in its rightful place and now it.... isn't. Bah!

If it's true that the Bond people were running scared of competition from/comparisons with IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT (although it seems easy to believe that the hunt for a director is what's delayed the film), then it's an absolutely pathetic attitude, effectively saying "The Bond series is a loser next to the big American franchise winners and must be kept safely away from them".

[Mike00spy]

The article listed the new date as Nov 7th, which doesn't seem quite right to me. All of the Nov releases have been the Friday before Thanksgiving. Thish also lets them take advantage of the big holiday Weekend (Wed-Sun) for its second week of release, which insures a healthy start.

This makes me wonder if the article is complete correct.

[crheath]

Not surprising news here. The May 2008 release date was before director Roger Hill suddenly pulled out.

[Cody]

The six months of extra wait hurts, but I think the delay is for the best.

[jaguar007]

It sounds like quite a reliable piece of information which seems a shame. I imagine that confirmation would come in the form of another press release from EON/Sony. Will be interesting to see what reasons they give officially - doubt they'd admit they're running scared of another movie.

Maybe they are less than enthused with the finished product in Casino Royale and are having to rethink their strategy. That seems the most logical explanation.

Oh God, here it starts! I think it is pretty obvious that this news comes a couple of weeks after the director left the project.

The official website no longer states that Bond 22 will be out May 2008.

[scottright]

This is a smart move. First - take some time to see how well "Casino Royale" goes over with the public and to find a good director. Why rush if you don't have to?

[zencat]

Well...a little dissapointing...but I am happy that May 2008 will now belong exclusively to the Centenary Novel and IFP's planned Ian Fleming centenary events.

I wasn't too confident about releasing Bond in Summer anyway.

[The Dove]

I was afraid of this happening after Roger Michell dropped out of the directing duties.. This bites big time! But its only a couple of extra months, so I think I'll live!!

[Loomis]

Well...a little dissapointing...but I am happy that May 2008 will now belong exclusively to the Centenary Novel and IFP's planned Ian Fleming centenary events.

I wasn't too confident about releasing Bond in Summer anyway.

You mean that you didn't think they'd be able to make the tight schedule, or that you think a summer release would be a mistake?

[zencat]

That summer would be a mistake.

[Loomis]

Why?

[Daddy Bond]

I can't imagine they're scared of "Iron Man"; it will probably be another crappy comic book adaptation that bombs horribly. They probably don't have a director and a finished script and thought this was a better excuse.

Agreed, most of the comic book adaptations have been trash - except for Spiderman and Batman Begins. Bond would likely stomp Iron Man in the box office, doesn't sound like much competition to me.

More likely it has to do with getting another quality director. I also agree that I want them to do it right, not just fast.

Anyway, 1 Bond picture every 2 yrs. is better than we've had in recent years.

Regards

[zencat]

Why?

I just think it might have suffered against summer competition. But maybe it wouldn't, I don't know. But Bond does very well in Fall, so there we go. No biggie.

[dee-bee-five]

I fear this will descend into yet more "completely accurate box office impact analysis" / "they are running scared because they have cast a deformed goblin" / "horrendously boring guesswork" very soon.

Whereas, the reality is common sense and box office expediency kicking in.