1025 replies to this topic

[FredJB007]

Ok....the situation sucks, but maybe, just maybe with this delay, we will get a great script, renewed dedication from everyone involved, great anticipation from all movie lovers- not just hardcore 007 fans and if we are lucky, the film comes out in 2012....the 50th anniversary. A lot of press coverage, new books celebrating Bond....guess I'm a "glass half-full" kinda guy. Doesn't do any good to be angry, I'm going to try and stay positive.
My only fear is, I just don't want Craig to go away, a la Dalton. At least two more films, Daniel.

[Bucky]

Considering it just made my local morning news, Eon has called MGM out.

I don't know what their deal is with MGM or how binding it is, but I suspect that Eon will extricate themselves from the Lion and offer themselves up to any studio that wants to back them.

Frankly, any of the major studios would pay more for Bond than they would for MGM.

IMO, this will all be resolved inside of ten days and 007 will have a new home at some other studio (WB is my bet).

Which begs the question: which studio logo is the one you want the most before the next Bond film?

Personally, I've always loved the 20th Century Fox logo and theme music. Would love to hear the familiar march music and see the strobe lights and the 20th Century Fox logo before the beginning of the next Bond film.

Also, as a side note, I hope that this gambit of EON's results in Mendes losing his consulting gig and moving on to another project. The series does not need a Sam Mendes type director.

that would be the sound of a death march for bond if it happened. 20th century fox is easily the worst studio around.

[The Dove]

The news is spreading...it's now on the Yahoo! homepage via Reuters..

http://movies.yahoo....auction-reuters

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Basically, you say nothing, just react negatively to a comment without presenting a valid counterargument. "Not true and not fair" reads like someone who doesn't want to admit a painful truth. There's no development whatsoever.
Fact is, major studios these days belong to bigger companies whether we like it or not. I'm not saying MGM couldn't stay independent but it should have acknowledge it's no longer a major studio a long time ago. It doesn't even own its own library! It reminds me of David Selznick, pretending to be big fish but having to rent Hitchcock to other studios to finance his very few productions.
And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite. He didn't want the guy he'd been forced to partner with owning the whole thing but indeed Broccoli devoted his life to Bond barely doing anything else. Had Saltzman put all his attentions to Bond, he'd have never gone bankrupt but I really don't even believe he liked Bond that much. He took the option because he was advised it'd be a good deal but was so uninterested in the stories to allow Mankowitz and maibaum turn in a DN draft with no Dr No in it! (he was in charge of script supervision not Broccoli). He had no eye for business picking a crappy Bob Hope project over the Beatles. Cubby went into Bond because he liked the novels not because he was told. Some time ago I saw a copy of Thrilling Cities personally inscribed to Saltzman by Fleming offered at a used bookshop. That's how much he liked the whole thing.

I don't think the film industry needed MGM to "acknowledge it's no longer a major studio a long time ago". The industry did not need MGM to do that. The industry knows. Why else do you think it is apparently so hard to sell MGM? Everyone knows its problems - problems which date back decades.

You say Saltzman "had no eye for business picking a crappy Bob Hope project over the Beatles". It is no secret Harry Salztman (via your example) did not 'get' The Beatles (he couldn't see why Paul McCartney and Wings Bond song was highly suitable for starters). But producing titles such as LOOK BACK IN ANGER, SATURDAY NIGHT SUNDAY MORNING, THE IPCRESS FILE and THE ENTERTAINER is not quite the output of a man who had "no eye for business" or the cinematic zeitgeist he was working in.

And there were other reasons why Saltzman finally moved on - regardless of where or who he sold his stake in Bond to (the fragile state of the health of his wife and mother of his teenage kids for starters - kids who continue to be friends of Cubby Broccoli's family and children).

Is that enough "counterargument" for now...?

Saltzman's Woodfall films are regarded as classics but they were not successful and that's why he moved into Bond. He was really lucky of being offered/suggested the property but I don't think he would have seen it had he stumbled upon it. Regarding IPCRESS, it didn't take a brain surgeon to bet on another spy property during the 60's (Irvin Allen who told Fleming his books weren't good enough for TV ended up producing Matt Helm!). IPCRESS also makes me doubt Saltzman's reputed "eye" for artistic quality. It's an exceptional film, ahead of its time and Saltzman hated it until he got an award for it which he of course accepted personally.
Broccoli forgave Saltzman in '81. There was a feud all right. The fact that the kids remain friends doesn't prove otherwise. You also mention his wife's illness and it reminds me of how the deal between Broccoli and Fleming was blown because Broccoli chose nursing his wife instead. Saltzman should have put everything else on hold but instead he was building castle in the air and ended up living in Florida. His own kids admit to that. There were no other reasons for Saltzman moving on, he was forced to. Saltzman was
If you read carefully, it's not about the industry acknowledging MGM status (they have) but about MGM themselves acknowledging it (and they sure haven't) but, I'm sorry to say, you do not read things carefully. You're bent on winning the argument at all costs(you could have simply ignored my initial post if it was so puerile but of course you have it all figured out and had to have the last say).

[Loomis]

Daniel will not be returning for bond 23.

'course not. They're gonna call Pierce Brosnan again
Just kidding.

Well, they could do a lot worse. If Craig doesn't return, I for one would happily see Brosnan clamber back aboard the good ship 007. A Brosnan comeback as Bond might even be bigger box office than a Craig comeback as Bond, at least in the United States.

They'd be damn lucky to get him nowadays, though.

[jaguar007]

And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite.

And given that they were equal partners, how exactly do you think that Cubby could have raised the money to buy Saltzman out without partnering with someone else?

Exactly! Do you know for a FACT that Saltzman did not offer Cubby his stake in Danjaq? Perhaps UA was willing to pay more for Saltzman's shares than Cubby could.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite.

And given that they were equal partners, how exactly do you think that Cubby could have raised the money to buy Saltzman out without partnering with someone else?

Well, he did offer to do so. And he wasn't in debt as Saltzman was.

"The debt that Harry had with UBS was a long-standing one. Went back years and years. And they had lost patience with him... By the end of 1975, the crisis over Saltzman's debts came to a head. He could not sell his shares in Danjaq without Broccoli's approval, and he was reluctant to sell his shares to Broccoli"

James Bond The Legacy p 164

It doesn't say Broccoli was financially uncapable of buying off Saltzman but that Saltzman didn't want to sell to Broccoli. In the end, he didn't. He sold to UA and thta's that. All subsequent developments continue to be tied to 1975.

[Lachesis]

And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite.

And given that they were equal partners, how exactly do you think that Cubby could have raised the money to buy Saltzman out without partnering with someone else?

Well, he did offer to do so. And he wasn't in debt as Saltzman was.

"The debt that Harry had with UBS was a long-standing one. Went back years and years. And they had lost patience with him... By the end of 1975, the crisis over Saltzman's debts came to a head. He could not sell his shares in Danjaq without Broccoli's approval, and he was reluctant to sell his shares to Broccoli"

James Bond The Legacy p 164

It doesn't say Broccoli was financially uncapable of buying off Saltzman but that Saltzman didn't want to sell to Broccoli. In the end, he didn't. He sold to UA and thta's that. All subsequent developments continue to be tied to 1975.

Tha doesnt really say anything of the reasoning behind the descision (except the instigagtion was not of Saltzmans volition) or the reason for his reluctance to sell to Brocolli. Anyone in a business partnership knows that selling to a partner is rarely going to get the best financial deal as going to a competitive market is invariably going to garner a higher price.

As for business acumen wasn't it true that Saltzman was actually first to option the Fleming books (as revealed in Brocolli's biography extract recent quoted on CBn). It seems to me, Saltzman was an inspirational but restless film producer, Brocolli more conservative and focussed...both approaches are valid and just becasue we might dedicate ourselves to Bond, there is no justification for ringfencing anyone else - the world needs both kinds of men and I am certain Bond benefitted greatly from the differing approaches to the project.

Allaying such blame so long after the event seems more than a little churlish, particulaarly when Bond's film success, their joint success is carved into film history. We have ambitions, we have plans, we have aspirations and we have needs....and then life happens, no matter who you are or how much you wish it didnt!

Edited by Lachesis, 20 April 2010 - 07:07 PM.

[Cody]

A day later, Mendes news. He might be going to Oz.

Sam Mendes is the front runner to direct "Oz The Great And Powerful" by Mitchell Kapner, with Robert Downey, Jr. circling to play the Wizard.

...the story of how Professor Marvel went from being a con man in Kansas to being the Wizard of Oz himself.

[Quantumofsolace007]

A day later, Mendes news. He might be going to Oz.

Sam Mendes is the front runner to direct "Oz The Great And Powerful" by Mitchell Kapner, with Robert Downey, Jr. circling to play the Wizard.

...the story of how Professor Marvel went from being a con man in Kansas to being the Wizard of Oz himself.

Well I guess Mendes Left bond

Shame despite some on here reservations i was quite keen to see what he would do.

But maybe i might get Joe Canharan (the A-team) or David Goyer (blade trinity)

Oh well

[TheREAL008]

I'm sorry but I don't see why EON can't just RETURN to Sony or even go to Universal for a 3 or 4 picture deal. Then judge by the success of said three or four movies and then possibly have an option for renewal.

MGM...I love 'em as much as anyone else, but it's time to fade away into history with the great film companies of the past.

[jaguar007]

I'm sorry but I don't see why EON can't just RETURN to Sony or even go to Universal for a 3 or 4 picture deal. Then judge by the success of said three or four movies and then possibly have an option for renewal.

Because MGM OWNS a share of Bond. The only way EON can just go to another studio would be with an agreement from MGM.

[bond girl 007]

Please god don't let this be Timothy Dalton all over again because that would just be too much two brilliant Bonds not allowed to reach their full potential would just be an absolute crime and just wrong my heart goes out to Daniel Craig please keep the faith Daniel because four Bond films from my two favourite bond's is just not enough I'll bet Albert R Cubby Brocoli is spinning in his grave seeing what is happening to the insttution he looked after so carefully

[JimmyBond]

Daniel will not be returning for bond 23.

'course not. They're gonna call Pierce Brosnan again
Just kidding.

Well, they could do a lot worse. If Craig doesn't return, I for one would happily see Brosnan clamber back aboard the good ship 007. A Brosnan comeback as Bond might even be bigger box office than a Craig comeback as Bond, at least in the United States.

They'd be damn lucky to get him nowadays, though.

I could actually see that happening. And if it did Brosnan would have great leverage to get them to give him a great script. Perhaps he'd finally go out on that high everybody wanted him too.

[zencat]

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

[jaguar007]

I could actually see that happening. And if it did Brosnan would have great leverage to get them to give him a great script. Perhaps he'd finally go out on that high everybody wanted him too.

I can't really see that happening. First, he will be too old. Second, I think the relations between Brosnan and EON are too rough for him to be invited back. Yes, Connery was asked back for DAF, but Connery WAS Bond to the public back then. It has since been proven Bond can continue with a new actor. I think EON would rather place a new Bond and go forward with the series rather than a one - off film with a returning Brosnan.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Daniel will not be returning for bond 23.

'course not. They're gonna call Pierce Brosnan again
Just kidding.

Well, they could do a lot worse. If Craig doesn't return, I for one would happily see Brosnan clamber back aboard the good ship 007. A Brosnan comeback as Bond might even be bigger box office than a Craig comeback as Bond, at least in the United States.

They'd be damn lucky to get him nowadays, though.

I could actually see that happening. And if it did Brosnan would have great leverage to get them to give him a great script. Perhaps he'd finally go out on that high everybody wanted him too.

LOL... Don't typecast me as an Anti-Craigist, but getting Pierce back would really be breaking news for me. "Mom! Pierce is back as Bond!!" That'd be as great as Peron's return to my country in 1974!

[JimmyBond]

Nicolas Suszczyk,

Not wanting to derail this thread about Brosnan talk, I started a similar thread about Brosnan theoretically returning to the series over in the Brosnan forum. Check it out.

[zencat]

You know, if these were the old days, Kevin McClory would have issued a press release by now announcing the forthcoming production of Warhead 2011, starring Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, and Sean Connery, of course!

And you would all believe it.

[Germanlady]

I can´t believe rather serious members are discussing this in earnest. Its too ridiculous to even imagine. Even me as a hardcore DC fan would rather have a new Bond then Pierce back. As of now - I don´t think there will be a new Bond any time soon - not for 23 at least.

[zencat]

Wrong thread, Germanlady. JimmyBond mercifully broke that conversation away to...

http://debrief.comma...p...c=57886&hl=

[Germanlady]

Wrong thread, Germanlady. JimmyBond mercifully broke that conversation away to...

http://debrief.comma...p...c=57886&hl=

Thanks - yeah "mercifully" is the word for this. or maybe painful...

[Quantumofsolace007]

I want Daniel Craig back!

[jaguar007]

To get things back on track...

I hope most of us are right and the reason EON made the press announcement is to help stick a final nail in the coffin of MGM and not as a way to put an end to all those Rachael Weitz/Lady GagGag/ Jamie Bell rumors that have been running rampant lately.

[Quantumofsolace007]

To get things back on track...

I hope most of us are right and the reason EON made the press announcement is to help stick a final nail in the coffin of MGM and not as a way to put an end to all those Rachael Weitz/Lady GagGag/ Jamie Bell rumors that have been running rampant lately.

Perhaps MGm starts fake rumors to keep bond 23 afloat in potnetial buyers minds.

[zencat]

I think it's possible MGM leaked Mendes' involvement (if this is true) as a way to excite bidders. It's possible.

All the other rumors were just normal seasonal tabloid trash.

[DamnCoffee]

I want Daniel Craig back!

He hasn't bloody gone anywhere.

To get things back on track...

I hope most of us are right and the reason EON made the press announcement is to help stick a final nail in the coffin of MGM and not as a way to put an end to all those Rachael Weitz/Lady GagGag/ Jamie Bell rumors that have been running rampant lately.

Perhaps MGm starts fake rumors to keep bond 23 afloat in potnetial buyers minds.

I'm pretty sure that's Illegal.

[Loomis]

I think it's possible MGM leaked Mendes' involvement (if this is true) as a way to excite bidders. It's possible.

All the other rumors were just normal seasonal tabloid trash.

I thought that the Mendes rumour had been debunked.

[zencat]

I'm still not convinced on that one (and lets please not debate it all again). If it's true, it's possible it was an MGM leak (or someone on their behalf?). That's all I'm saying. But it's just my own speculation.

[zencat]

BTW, I am eagerly anticipating "Hitler learns Bond 23 is delayed" on YouTube.