54 replies to this topic

[K1Bond007]

I think honestly Sony wants to transition Bond into a summer blockbuster. Remember they tried this with Quantum of Solace then backpedaled due to the director's chair being abdicated. I'll bet they shoot the film in 2010, but the release will take place in the summer (likely May) of 2011. Sony gets their way and has an opportunity to maximize Bond's take at the box office, Wilson gets a little more time off, and the creative team (writers, directors, etc) get more time to fine tune a good script.

Of course I won't be surprised about a Nov 2010 release either.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Bond 23' "Gets Rolling" In 2010, Says Daniel Craig

James Bond star briefly comments on his third 007 film

thank you i do apprecitate it.


bond 23 news is getting started I'm excited.

btw love the bond 23 graphic

[Cilogy]

All things considered, I'm gonna guess Bond 23 will be released in May of 2011.

Personally I think the ideal time would be fall of 2010, but these days it seems everything hinges on how lazy Michael G. Wilson is at any given time.

[double o ego]

no i believe bond 23 will be filming in 2010 no wether it's spring 2010 or fall 2010 is another whole story.

this i feel belongs on the front page and I belive will get a final date for bond 23 soon (I'm putting the due date between November 2010 and may 2011 i don't think it's coming after that and bond 24 i'd say 2012 in november makes the most sense)

For the sake of argument, if BOND 23 started filming in late 2010 (i.e. next year), we would be unlikely to get the movie in theatres until October-November 2011.

i suppose ur right but i feel we are getting closer to an announcment. May 2011 wouild be a nice change of pace.

I doubt they'd want to put Bond against the summer blockbusters, I'd say March 2011 is more likely.

March? Sounds unlikely, that's a bit off-season for blockbusters. Though I'm sure a Bond film would perform well whenever it was released, it would not get much weekday business if its released outside of the summer or end of year season.
While I'm used to the November release dates and the overall "Bond at Thanksgiving/Xmas" vibe, I don't think EON should be afraid of the summer anymore. Its been 20 years since LTK, I think everybody's over it now! When you can open a film to $67 million in November, it means you can play with the big boys, and summer has the advantage of bigger weekday attendance.

Sorry but the summers of 2011/12 will slaughter Bond. You've got films like spider-man 4, harry potter, captain america, thor, the avengers movie and no doubt batman 3....it would be box office suicide to release Bond in the summer of those 2 prospective years. Bond needs to stick to his autumn releases for now.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I always found it ridicilous that every big movie gets released in summer anyway, so I'm happy if Bond comes out in the autumn/spring.

[Zorin Industries]

Production-wise the film is already "rolling". Personnel will be mentally if not actually sourced, ideas will be pooled, logistics worked out and studio gameplans on the conference table. The film may even lense next year at some point, but right now I think Craig implied that the proverbial ball is "rolling" rather than the cameras.

[Safari Suit]

Sorry but the summers of 2011/12 will slaughter Bond. You've got films like spider-man 4, harry potter, captain america, thor, the avengers movie and no doubt batman 3....it would be box office suicide to release Bond in the summer of those 2 prospective years. Bond needs to stick to his autumn releases for now.

Well Spider-Man 3 seemed to be a major let down for many viewers, and that will have been four years gone by the time summer 2011 rolls around. I wouldn't call Captain America or Thor sure-fire bets either.

[Peckinpah1976]

I assume that Bond 23 will be Craig's last film so it would be nice to have an older male M back again.

That doesn't make sense; if Bond 23 is Craig's last (and it won't be but for the sake of argument) why would they bother recasting M for just one film (other than to assuage your own prejudices), surely it would make more sense to introduce a new supporting cast along with a new star?

Personally I like her a lot (being the only decent thing about the Brosnan films and having terrific on-screen chemistry with Craig) but she is getting beyond the point of being credible age-wise, though I think they're kind of stuck anyway because:-

1) Given that she's much respected and (in the UK at least) a big star in her own right; the producers are kind of forced to given her screen time appropriate to her status.

and

2) Recasting is going to be something of a problem because having a male again would seem like a huge step backward and another female is going to just be perceived as a Dench clone.

[Zorin Industries]

Sorry but the summers of 2011/12 will slaughter Bond. You've got films like spider-man 4, harry potter, captain america, thor, the avengers movie and no doubt batman 3....it would be box office suicide to release Bond in the summer of those 2 prospective years. Bond needs to stick to his autumn releases for now.

POTTER is on borrowed time. It will always make money, but the films have been in a rut for too long now. SPIDERMAN 4 has a lot to prove (and yes people will attend to see that happen or not) but the others are far from surefire bets. I wouldn't say WATCHMEN has quite set the box office alight.

BOND will come out when it comes out. It demands the attention of a wider audience than those who would go to the likes of SPIDER MAN 4 or POTTER and will always make money.

I would also like to throw my opinion into the mix and suggest that BOND 23 may just indeed be the last Craig outing. But we will see.

[Mr_Wint]

I assume that Bond 23 will be Craig's last film so it would be nice to have an older male M back again.

That doesn't make sense; if Bond 23 is Craig's last (and it won't be but for the sake of argument) why would they bother recasting M for just one film (other than to assuage your own prejudices), surely it would make more sense to introduce a new supporting cast along with a new star?

I don't see why the whole supporting cast has to be changed every time they go for a new Bondactor.

1) Given that she's much respected and (in the UK at least) a big star in her own right; the producers are kind of forced to given her screen time appropriate to her status.

Will the people in UK protest on the streets if Dench's screentime is less than 1 minute? I doubt that. The producers are not forced to do anything. They try to take advantage of the situation as much as they can.

2) Recasting is going to be something of a problem because having a male again would seem like a huge step backward and another female is going to just be perceived as a Dench clone.

It gives them an opportunity to use a character that Fleming himself created. Is that a step backward?

[Zorin Industries]

I assume that Bond 23 will be Craig's last film so it would be nice to have an older male M back again.

That doesn't make sense; if Bond 23 is Craig's last (and it won't be but for the sake of argument) why would they bother recasting M for just one film (other than to assuage your own prejudices), surely it would make more sense to introduce a new supporting cast along with a new star?

Personally I like her a lot (being the only decent thing about the Brosnan films and having terrific on-screen chemistry with Craig) but she is getting beyond the point of being credible age-wise, though I think they're kind of stuck anyway because:-

1) Given that she's much respected and (in the UK at least) a big star in her own right; the producers are kind of forced to given her screen time appropriate to her status.

and

2) Recasting is going to be something of a problem because having a male again would seem like a huge step backward and another female is going to just be perceived as a Dench clone.

What utter rubbish all round. Eon Productions can do and always do what they want to do (as they should). Casting a man as M will not be a regressive step. Casting another woman just because Judi Dench is a lady would be the regressive step (in the wrong actor's hands).

[tdalton]

I assume that Bond 23 will be Craig's last film so it would be nice to have an older male M back again.

That doesn't make sense; if Bond 23 is Craig's last (and it won't be but for the sake of argument) why would they bother recasting M for just one film (other than to assuage your own prejudices), surely it would make more sense to introduce a new supporting cast along with a new star?

Personally I like her a lot (being the only decent thing about the Brosnan films and having terrific on-screen chemistry with Craig) but she is getting beyond the point of being credible age-wise, though I think they're kind of stuck anyway because:-

1) Given that she's much respected and (in the UK at least) a big star in her own right; the producers are kind of forced to given her screen time appropriate to her status.

and

2) Recasting is going to be something of a problem because having a male again would seem like a huge step backward and another female is going to just be perceived as a Dench clone.

What utter rubbish all round. Eon Productions can do and always do what they want to do (as they should). Casting a man as M will not be a regressive step. Casting another woman just because Judi Dench is a lady would be the regressive step (in the wrong actor's hands).

Completely agreed. I don't see how going with a male M would necessarily be a regressive move. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see M replaced as I'm sure that her bosses aren't particularly happy with her. She's had her offices infiltrated by Quantum, has had an agent (Vesper, although not technically her agent, she did send her out into the field with Bond) turn on her, and has had another agent (Bond) do just about everything possible to annoy her bosses and put their interests in jeopardy (such as destroying that embassy in CR, his run-in with Haines' bodyguard in QoS, etc.). With all that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised to see M recast, or at least to see the current M very much in trouble with her superiors when we pick up the story in BOND 23. With that in mind, I wouldn't see it as a regressive step to bring in a male M or another female M.

[DLibrasnow]

I'd rather get a great movie every three years than a slightly rushed film like QoS every second. If one of the films in the series ever needed more work on the script level, it was sadly that one (it's for the most part a good movie, but it is completely overshadowed by its vastly superior predecessor, IMO, and would likely have benefitted from a more well-prepared script).

Casino Royale had the benefit of being closely based on a Ian Fleming novel. So, they started with a story and then brought Purvis and Wade on to do a screen treatment of the novel and Haggis to polish it.

Quantum of Solace was an original story from Purvis and Wade, the same people who brought you Die Another Day = you get what you pay for.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'd rather get a great movie every three years than a slightly rushed film like QoS every second. If one of the films in the series ever needed more work on the script level, it was sadly that one (it's for the most part a good movie, but it is completely overshadowed by its vastly superior predecessor, IMO, and would likely have benefitted from a more well-prepared script).

Casino Royale had the benefit of being closely based on a Ian Fleming novel. So, they started with a story and then brought Purvis and Wade on to do a screen treatment of the novel and Haggis to polish it.

Quantum of Solace was an original story from Purvis and Wade, the same people who brought you Die Another Day = you get what you pay for.

that isn't entirely true.


Die another day was based on moonraker it apparently had an ending similar to the novel but was scraped for not being "cinimatic enough" and Tamhori demanded a different ending.


Quantum of solace was based on Casino Royale and Quantum of solace taking what flemings views on a broken heart were and putting them into film format.


bond 23 i would prefer it if they took some unsued short story elements and real world poltics and combined them.

[Mr_Wint]

Casino Royale had the benefit of being closely based on a Ian Fleming novel. So, they started with a story and then brought Purvis and Wade on to do a screen treatment of the novel and Haggis to polish it.

But the final film has very little to do with the actual novel. We have a film that is 1) based around a card-game 2) Bond falling in love with a woman who then commits suicide and 3) A villain who torture Bond's balls. But the final film also have 95% of original material which I guess someone must have done.

Quantum of Solace was an original story from Purvis and Wade, the same people who brought you Die Another Day = you get what you pay for.

It seems like Tamahori changed quite a lot from the P&W script, and the same thing happened with QOS for sure.

[col_007]

personally i think they should stick to the 2 year cycle anymore than that is too long

[Vauxhall]

I hope the producers learn to stick to quality over quantity. It works and would please me.

[Pierce - Daniel]

I loved the political angle QOS took, but I really really love the Ian Fleming spy-type stories, I mean a banker invests his cilents money and loses it therefore needs to recoup it in a Casino game, or a girl has to pretend to fall in love with Bond while he takes a device supposely under the nose of the Soviets. They were so insane, but romantic and glamorious, they worked so well cinematically and were always exciting. We need more of that.


Anyway.....lets stop the speculation, and get down to brass tax.

The Empire awards are on this weekend, Gemma, Olga, and Daniel are all nominated as is QOS, so it's likely all of that lot and the prods will attend, Empire's website usually has full coverage, so the word on B23 should hopefully come from there.
www.empireonline.co.uk

[Germanlady]

The Empire awards are on this weekend, Gemma, Olga, and Daniel are all nominated as is QOS, so it's likely all of that lot and the prods will attend, Empire's website usually has full coverage, so the word on B23 should hopefully come from there.
www.empireonline.co.uk


You say, they will have a ceremony instead of just annopuncing the winners on their website?

[double o ego]

Sorry but the summers of 2011/12 will slaughter Bond. You've got films like spider-man 4, harry potter, captain america, thor, the avengers movie and no doubt batman 3....it would be box office suicide to release Bond in the summer of those 2 prospective years. Bond needs to stick to his autumn releases for now.

Well Spider-Man 3 seemed to be a major let down for many viewers, and that will have been four years gone by the time summer 2011 rolls around. I wouldn't call Captain America or Thor sure-fire bets either.

Spider-Man 3 was horrible yet it was the fastest grossing of the 3 movies to make almost $1 billion in under 4 months. Don't be fooled, the figures don't lie also. spider-man the brand name will always sell and will always outdo anything Bond-related, it's a fact. SM4 already has a set release date for early May 2011 and any movie thinking of being released around that time will automatically get slaughtered. The space between 2007 and 2011 is enough time for Sony to regroup and set out to correcting what went wrong with SM3 artistically.
As for Captain Americ and Thor, don't underestimate these properties. Marvel studios are giving these 2 movies the same care and dedication Ironman got in order to let things culminate in 1 big Avengers movie. Also, there's the dded novelty of Cap and Thor being on screen for the first time. Underestimating these movies' Bonx Office potential and the damage they can cause to competing movies isn't wise. Like I said, Bond would do extremely well to keep himself well away from the summer season.

Sorry but the summers of 2011/12 will slaughter Bond. You've got films like spider-man 4, harry potter, captain america, thor, the avengers movie and no doubt batman 3....it would be box office suicide to release Bond in the summer of those 2 prospective years. Bond needs to stick to his autumn releases for now.

POTTER is on borrowed time. It will always make money, but the films have been in a rut for too long now. SPIDERMAN 4 has a lot to prove (and yes people will attend to see that happen or not) but the others are far from surefire bets. I wouldn't say WATCHMEN has quite set the box office alight.

BOND will come out when it comes out. It demands the attention of a wider audience than those who would go to the likes of SPIDER MAN 4 or POTTER and will always make money.

I would also like to throw my opinion into the mix and suggest that BOND 23 may just indeed be the last Craig outing. But we will see.

When it comes down to it, the only thing that matters is money and as you've said, Potter and spider-man will own in that department. The hype for these 2 movies is already here and sm4 doesn't come out until May 2011. Like I said for Cap and Thor, Marvel studios aren't joking around with these properties who have the novelty of being brought to the screen for the first time...properly. Bond will come out when it comes out BUT he won't be coming out during the summer any time soon because he just doesn't have the clout, especially when you also take in the current economic climate. You think that with QoS being bashed so hard by the majority of critics and audiences alike that it'll compete in the summer season so soon with the big blockbuster guns? Survey says......

[Quantumofsolace007]

I disagree Ghost Rider Iron man and hulk were all treated the same way and Iron man was a huge sucess. so thor and captain america ...


Bond 23 in may 2011 is fine and that still gives everyone enough time to bond 24 in 2012 in november. Bond has enough international clout to be a success period. as for Summer versus fall Bond 23 being a summer release may be great if they have the goldfingeresque film they belive they have then perfect. It will be a huge success as for a fall release that is ok too.

[Skudor]

All things being equal this sort of implies a target of November 2010, assuming they aren't going to change their MO. Quicker than I expected.

[Quantumofsolace007]

should be interesting

[double o ego]

I disagree Ghost Rider Iron man and hulk were all treated the same way and Iron man was a huge sucess. so thor and captain america ...


Bond 23 in may 2011 is fine and that still gives everyone enough time to bond 24 in 2012 in november. Bond has enough international clout to be a success period. as for Summer versus fall Bond 23 being a summer release may be great if they have the goldfingeresque film they belive they have then perfect. It will be a huge success as for a fall release that is ok too.

Ironman, hulk and ghost rider were not treated in the same way at all. First of all, Fox own the rights to Ghost rider and when it comes to film properties, especially those based on comic books, Fox are completely useless. As for hulk, the creative team behind it pales in comparisson to the creative team behind those that worked on Ironamn. The only person that contributed anything of legitimate worth on the hulk film was Norton as he even wrote many parts of the film's script. In fact Norton even had well publicised disputes with Marvel over various things regarding the quality of the overall film. To be fair there's not much to expect from a hulk movie other than what we've already seen. Ironman though, was brilliant. Not perfect but easily head and shoulders above hulk and the abysmal ghost rider. Cap and Thor are 2 properties that Marvel will handle with the same regard as Ironman if not moreso. Couple that with the competition-destroyer known as spider-man, not to mention a 4th Bourne movie. Bond being released in the summer is just financially a stupid idea. And to be fair, if the next Bond film is being sold as goldfingeresque, well, I'm afarid I'm going to be a little skeptical as, QoS prior to it's release was being regarded almost in the same vain...even though I think QoS is a good film and did enjoy it, it just didn't have the same gravitas as CR did when it came to overall quality and scope. Selling that in the summer just isn't safe. Eon are better off sticking to the autumn season, where it's safer and there's very little competition and surprise every one with Craig's thunderous third outing, giving audiences and critics alike a renewd confidence in Bond, James Bond.

[Safari Suit]

Sorry but the summers of 2011/12 will slaughter Bond. You've got films like spider-man 4, harry potter, captain america, thor, the avengers movie and no doubt batman 3....it would be box office suicide to release Bond in the summer of those 2 prospective years. Bond needs to stick to his autumn releases for now.

Well Spider-Man 3 seemed to be a major let down for many viewers, and that will have been four years gone by the time summer 2011 rolls around. I wouldn't call Captain America or Thor sure-fire bets either.

Spider-Man 3 was horrible yet it was the fastest grossing of the 3 movies to make almost $1 billion in under 4 months. Don't be fooled, the figures don't lie also. spider-man the brand name will always sell and will always outdo anything Bond-related, it's a fact. SM4 already has a set release date for early May 2011 and any movie thinking of being released around that time will automatically get slaughtered. The space between 2007 and 2011 is enough time for Sony to regroup and set out to correcting what went wrong with SM3 artistically.
As for Captain Americ and Thor, don't underestimate these properties. Marvel studios are giving these 2 movies the same care and dedication Ironman got in order to let things culminate in 1 big Avengers movie. Also, there's the dded novelty of Cap and Thor being on screen for the first time. Underestimating these movies' Bonx Office potential and the damage they can cause to competing movies isn't wise. Like I said, Bond would do extremely well to keep himself well away from the summer season.

I agree that Captain America and Thor should not be undrestimated, but I do not think they're guaranteed successes either. Captain America in particular does not really chime with contemporary sensibilities.