17 replies to this topic

[Stax]

http://www.calendarl...?coll=cl-movies

"Nonetheless, Sony's relationship with the producers and their Bond franchise may be short-lived. MGM, of which Sony owns 20%, plans to regain control after the next Bond movie, already slotted for Nov. 7, 2009."

I know it was pushed from its May '08 initial release date but over a year later? I think the LA Times may have made a goof. Or maybe it's news.

[DLibrasnow]

Considering Nov. 7, 2009 is a Saturday I think it's a goof on the part of the LA Times.

[K1Bond007]

Typo.

But that quote shows how retarded the Sony-MGM deal is. I wonder if Bond will return to UA instead of MGM.

[DLibrasnow]

Typo.

But that quote shows how retarded the Sony-MGM deal is. I wonder if Bond will return to UA instead of MGM.

Not at all. Sony didn't have the resources to buy MGM outright like Time Warner was going to do. They needed to be part of a consortium, so Sony only owns 20% of MGM.

And EON Productions control 100% of James Bond.

[Loomis]

I expect it's a typo, but I think it would be a mistake to push BOND 22 back to 2009, especially if, as seems likely, it'll **BEWARE CR SPOILERS, ALBEIT PRETTY MILD ONES**

Spoiler

continue some of the story threads of CASINO ROYALE

.

Craig needs to be firmly established as Bond - not just as "the new Bond", but as Bond - in "the public eye" as quickly as possible, and this is obviously best served by getting his CR followup in cinemas as quickly as possible. And he needs to keep up the momentum of what by all accounts is absolutely splendid acting work as 007 - a Brosnanesque three-year gap might cause him to go off the boil a bit. I hope BOND 22 won't be as slow to get off the ground as THE DARK KNIGHT (BATMAN BEGINS 2), which to my mind is hitting screens a year too late.

Mind you, having said all that, didn't Craig say (sorry, no source to cite, but I seem to recall his saying this) that he was contracted for three films and that he'd step down as Bond in 2012? In which case: CR - 2006, BOND 22 - 2009, BOND 23 - 2012? Hmmm....

[DLibrasnow]

Mind you, having said all that, didn't Craig say (sorry, no source to cite, but I seem to recall his saying this) that he was contracted for three films and that he'd step down as Bond in 2012? In which case: CR - 2006, BOND 22 - 2009, BOND 23 - 2012? Hmmm....

But are they really going to release it on a Saturday?

[Loomis]

Doubt it.

[K1Bond007]

Typo.

But that quote shows how retarded the Sony-MGM deal is. I wonder if Bond will return to UA instead of MGM.

Not at all. Sony didn't have the resources to buy MGM outright like Time Warner was going to do. They needed to be part of a consortium, so Sony only owns 20% of MGM.

But they're not getting much out of the deal. And I was speaking of distribution. I know who owns Bond. Doesn't matter, last I checked Sony was on the books to finance two James Bond films, Casino Royale being the first. That's pretty much the best thing they got out of it.

[Righty007]

Bond 22 is going to be released on November 7, 2008 not 2009. It's simply a typo.

[Qwerty]

Just looks like a typo to me.

[Double-0-7]

Since the talk is that a script is well in the works, I was hoping that they would push the date the other way - and take advantage of it being the year of the Bond - 2 007.

Two years is plenty of time between movies, that sure looks like a typo. Nice work editors!

[JimmyBond]

Since the talk is that a script is well in the works, I was hoping that they would push the date the other way - and take advantage of it being the year of the Bond - 2 007.

Don't forget they were planning on a Summer 08 release date, but their director hopeful (Michell) fell through. That's why they pushed it back to the fall, I doubt they'd push for a 2007 release date without a director secured.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Typo.

But that quote shows how retarded the Sony-MGM deal is. I wonder if Bond will return to UA instead of MGM.

Not at all. Sony didn't have the resources to buy MGM outright like Time Warner was going to do. They needed to be part of a consortium, so Sony only owns 20% of MGM.

And EON Productions control 100% of James Bond.

I asume that's why MGM can plan a deal with Tom Cruise to ressurent UA without Sony's involvement.

AND....lets hope Cruise isn't allowed anywhere near Bond if he's able to reform UA!

[FlemingBond]

I hope it comes out in two years. This three or four year thing is too long. 2 007, i like it.

[zencat]

My guess is this is a typo.

[Blofeld's Cat]

TYPOO7

[Bucky]

it better be a typo. i dont think i can handle a 3 year wait for the next one after seeing casino royale last night.

[Qwerty]

it better be a typo.

It definitely appears to be.