1025 replies to this topic

[Quantumofsolace007]

Bond 23 was never going to be released in 2010.

November 2011, however, was an entirely realistic possibility. I wouldn't want to say that, in the case of a miracle, that release date still couldn't be made (depending on how far along the script is, and how much preparation Mendes has actually done).

I believe Forster was announced in July 2008, apparently with a script in rough or nonexistant shape, and filming commenced the following January for a November release.

Assuming the script might already be in somewhat of a solid state, were Mendes to be announced later this summer and the ball rolling in January as per usual, November 2011 is still a possibility.

But not a likelihood, given these MGM dragons' capacity for greed, stubbornness, and naivete in thinking there's a way out of the situation. That being said - if the MGM situation is indeed resolved by the end of 2010, I see no reason Bond 23 can't be released in Summer 2012.

Which would be a painful, yet manageable delay, of only about 5-6 months.

Matt I'm unsure should I remain hopeful for 2011 or should I figure 2012 if we're lucky.


I'm the most exuberant person on this board and even I am starting to fill disappointed sad and lost when it comes to my favorite spy.

[Simon]

........... by a couple of greedy suits battling it out on 007's back?

I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Are we really at the stage where £37bn doesn't warrant pause for thought?

As for DC's longevity, artistry aside, another six years may require a restart as he may then be 'so' advanced in age that to do one film followed by a further actor replacement may be the wrong way forward. It may be considered inconsistent, or confusing to Americans who, for example, don't fathom titles like Licence Revoked.

[Trident]

........... by a couple of greedy suits battling it out on 007's back?

I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Are we really at the stage where £37bn doesn't warrant pause for thought?

Oh, it sure does. I just don't feel it already justifies to give up all hope for further films with Craig now.

As for DC's longevity, artistry aside, another six years may require a restart as he may then be 'so' advanced in age that to do one film followed by a further actor replacement may be the wrong way forward. It may be considered inconsistent, or confusing to Americans who, for example, don't fathom titles like Licence Revoked.

Another six years, hm, that would really be a problem. But for one thing, I don't think it will actually take six more years. It's probably a draw now, but that needn't mean it will stay a draw for eternity.

And secondly, apart from my personal suspicion that average Americans may actually be less confused than they are often libelled as, why not round up a story arch with one actor? Giving the films a cycle could also mean a new direction for the series, maybe even more so when that cycle is spanning a wider period, as would here be the case.

[blueman]

Bond 23 was never going to be released in 2010.

November 2011, however, was an entirely realistic possibility. I wouldn't want to say that, in the case of a miracle, that release date still couldn't be made (depending on how far along the script is, and how much preparation Mendes has actually done).

I believe Forster was announced in July 2008, apparently with a script in rough or nonexistant shape, and filming commenced the following January for a November release.

Assuming the script might already be in somewhat of a solid state, were Mendes to be announced later this summer and the ball rolling in January as per usual, November 2011 is still a possibility.

But not a likelihood, given these MGM dragons' capacity for greed, stubbornness, and naivete in thinking there's a way out of the situation. That being said - if the MGM situation is indeed resolved by the end of 2010, I see no reason Bond 23 can't be released in Summer 2012.

Which would be a painful, yet manageable delay, of only about 5-6 months.

Very reasonable post and worth repeating.

[A Kristatos]

Bond 23 was never going to be released in 2010.

November 2011, however, was an entirely realistic possibility. I wouldn't want to say that, in the case of a miracle, that release date still couldn't be made (depending on how far along the script is, and how much preparation Mendes has actually done).

I believe Forster was announced in July 2008, apparently with a script in rough or nonexistant shape, and filming commenced the following January for a November release.

Assuming the script might already be in somewhat of a solid state, were Mendes to be announced later this summer and the ball rolling in January as per usual, November 2011 is still a possibility.

But not a likelihood, given these MGM dragons' capacity for greed, stubbornness, and naivete in thinking there's a way out of the situation. That being said - if the MGM situation is indeed resolved by the end of 2010, I see no reason Bond 23 can't be released in Summer 2012.

Which would be a painful, yet manageable delay, of only about 5-6 months.

Very reasonable post and worth repeating.

Plus they can market Bond 23 as a 50th anniversary release which would be cool and well worth the delay.

[jamie00007]

The last time they marketed an "anniversary" Bond film we got Die Another Day...

[Mr. Blofeld]

The last time they marketed an "anniversary" Bond film we got Die Another Day...

They know better, now.

[Safari Suit]

The last time they marketed an "anniversary" Bond film we got Die Another Day...

But before that it was The Living Daylights (25 years). And before that it was Octopussy (21 years) (I know the quality of that one is much contested, but I'm sticking by it). And before that The Spy Who Loved Me (15 years, 10th film). So while no doubt some wondersously clever person will come along and say all those were crap, I don't think they should particularly avoid anniversary films just because of DAD (which I personally quite like anyway). What they should perhaps avoid is going overboard with the celebrations within the film itself, which is what DAD could be accused of.

[tuttle300]

Even if the financial mess gets straightened out this year, the fans have another crisis approaching...

Aren't several union contracts due for renewal soon? (2013?)
Writers, directors and actors among others?
The last writers strike (if memory serves) disrupted whole TV schedules as well as delayed dozens of films

I'd hate to have the finances get cleared up and then have EON have to rush through filming if they happen to have any American cast/directors/crew members who might need to strike once their respective contracts come up in the middle of filming

While the EON team has an impecible reputation for traveling the world and hopping from location to location and giving us another Bond film within a years' time (I'm talking strictly principle photography, not editing, music score etc)if this doesn't clear up soon they may have to delay filming to wait until all contracts are renewed to make sure they have a proper team in place and can film without distractions and bring us another quality product within this Daniel Craig era- which, arguably, is the best era we've seen since Connery

It's be nice if life were just a bit simpler...

[Mr. Somerset]

July 14th? Just in time for the 21st anniversary of LTK.

[byline]

Another extension is official...

http://www.deadline....-until-july-14/

...and I'm making my disgusted face.

Bloody hell.

[Zorin Industries]

Even if the financial mess gets straightened out this year, the fans have another crisis approaching...

Aren't several union contracts due for renewal soon? (2013?)

Not sure that needs to be a problem - even if that prospect would/could disrupt Hollywood. Remember though - Tinseltown is in the business of making money. It doesn't like it for long when it cannot do that.

[elizabeth]

Tres bonne! (apologies if even that little bit of French is wrong I was much better at German when I was at school! )

Tres bon.

[Guy Haines]

Tres bonne! (apologies if even that little bit of French is wrong I was much better at German when I was at school! )

Tres bon.

Danke schon! (minus the umlaut, unfortunately! )

[Germanlady]

MGM mulls management overhaul
http://www.reuters.c...ype=marketsNews

[SecretAgentFan]

Yeah, mulling. Faster, please. With definite results.

[Simon]

Ah yes. If in doubt, replace the management.

1. With this debt, who is going to lend still more money to MGM to make further movies?
2. The debt repayments alone will cost more than any profits from hits.
3. Who will want to make 'artistically' viable movies in an environment of suits breathing down ones neck to cut costs?

Personally, with absolutely no knowledge of anything to do with studios, debt management, banking, lending, film making (this isn't going to be the definitive suggestion) I would suggest first selling Bond, then the Hobbit, then the studio for whatever amount one is prepared to pay, milk the library for whatever DVD sell throughs it can muster and be prohibited from making films for the next 10 years.

At least the franchises can continue apace and some debt repayment can be effected through the long slog of DVD sales.

Whether the above does hold any water, there are no quick fixes, no matter who's sitting in the top echelons.

[SecretAgentFan]

Somehow - of course, I speculate - it seems that MGM is in a situation that has the banks hold out and not put pressure on.

So, a new management indeed could signal that even more faith AND financing would be the right long term strategy.

With a new team on board, of course, they would not go for artistic risks but slam dunks.

Bond 23. The Hobbit.

Question is: Will EON still hold out? It seems as if they want to get away from MGM. So, they could wait it out. They don´t need to make another Bond for some time.

Let´s keep our fingers crossed, Bond 23 will not be Bond in the year 2300.

[Joe Bond]

According to this article it seems MGM is close to a standalone deal that would consist of a prepackaged bankruptcy.

Cerberus Capital Management is among the strategic partners in discussions with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer about a standalone deal to prop up the troubled film studio.

According to reports, MGM has been in talks with Summit Entertainment, Cerebus-owned Spyglass Entertainment and ex-Yahoo executive Terry Semel, about a plan to keep the iconic film house afloat following a tepid auction response.

The plan would involve filing for pre-packaged bankruptcy, would involve $1bn in capital including $500m in new equity and would reportedly leave the company open to make between four and ten films a year.

The company was bought in 2005 for $5bn by a consortium made up of Sony Corporation of America and Comcast in association with US private equity firms TPG and Providence, DLJ and Quadrangle, but is struggling with its $3.7bn debt load, leading to the ousting of CEO Harry Sloane in August 2009. The proposed new deal could involve a management shake-up that would also see the departure of replacement CEO Mary Parent.

Founded in 1924, MGM has a film library of over 4,000 titles, including the Wizard of Oz, Singin’ in the Rain, Gone with the Wind and the James Bond series. The latest installment of the bond franchise, which American Beauty’s Sam Mendes slated to direct, has been put on indefinite hold as a result of MGM’s financial woes.

The studio has received an extension on debt payments from its creditors until 14 July.

[tdalton]

According to this article it seems MGM is close to a standalone deal that would consist of a prepackaged bankruptcy.

Cerberus Capital Management is among the strategic partners in discussions with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer about a standalone deal to prop up the troubled film studio.

According to reports, MGM has been in talks with Summit Entertainment, Cerebus-owned Spyglass Entertainment and ex-Yahoo executive Terry Semel, about a plan to keep the iconic film house afloat following a tepid auction response.

The plan would involve filing for pre-packaged bankruptcy, would involve $1bn in capital including $500m in new equity and would reportedly leave the company open to make between four and ten films a year.

The company was bought in 2005 for $5bn by a consortium made up of Sony Corporation of America and Comcast in association with US private equity firms TPG and Providence, DLJ and Quadrangle, but is struggling with its $3.7bn debt load, leading to the ousting of CEO Harry Sloane in August 2009. The proposed new deal could involve a management shake-up that would also see the departure of replacement CEO Mary Parent.

Founded in 1924, MGM has a film library of over 4,000 titles, including the Wizard of Oz, Singin’ in the Rain, Gone with the Wind and the James Bond series. The latest installment of the bond franchise, which American Beauty’s Sam Mendes slated to direct, has been put on indefinite hold as a result of MGM’s financial woes.

The studio has received an extension on debt payments from its creditors until 14 July.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

I could definitely get behind the idea of Summit Entertainment having some role in MGM and, therefore by extension, the Bond franchise. Looking over the list of films they've put out, there's some real good ones in there (The Hurt Locker and The Ghost Writer being amongst them) and they have a nice variety of different kinds of films under their belt. Also, between The Hobbit and Bond, if MGM could hitch their wagon in any way to the Twilight films, it could only help their financial situation.

[Quantumofsolace007]

According to this article it seems MGM is close to a standalone deal that would consist of a prepackaged bankruptcy.

Cerberus Capital Management is among the strategic partners in discussions with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer about a standalone deal to prop up the troubled film studio.

According to reports, MGM has been in talks with Summit Entertainment, Cerebus-owned Spyglass Entertainment and ex-Yahoo executive Terry Semel, about a plan to keep the iconic film house afloat following a tepid auction response.

The plan would involve filing for pre-packaged bankruptcy, would involve $1bn in capital including $500m in new equity and would reportedly leave the company open to make between four and ten films a year.

The company was bought in 2005 for $5bn by a consortium made up of Sony Corporation of America and Comcast in association with US private equity firms TPG and Providence, DLJ and Quadrangle, but is struggling with its $3.7bn debt load, leading to the ousting of CEO Harry Sloane in August 2009. The proposed new deal could involve a management shake-up that would also see the departure of replacement CEO Mary Parent.

Founded in 1924, MGM has a film library of over 4,000 titles, including the Wizard of Oz, Singin’ in the Rain, Gone with the Wind and the James Bond series. The latest installment of the bond franchise, which American Beauty’s Sam Mendes slated to direct, has been put on indefinite hold as a result of MGM’s financial woes.

The studio has received an extension on debt payments from its creditors until 14 July.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

I could definitely get behind the idea of Summit Entertainment having some role in MGM and, therefore by extension, the Bond franchise. Looking over the list of films they've put out, there's some real good ones in there (The Hurt Locker and The Ghost Writer being amongst them) and they have a nice variety of different kinds of films under their belt. Also, between The Hobbit and Bond, if MGM could hitch their wagon in any way to the Twilight films, it could only help their financial situation.

So if this deal works out could we see bond next year?

[Zorin Industries]

Time Will Tell (maybe that is the title...?!)

[Quantumofsolace007]

Time Will Tell (maybe that is the title...?!)

Sigh I love how my penchant for Title rumors have become a in joke here.

[JimmyBond]

Your reputation is what you make it. It doesn't have to be a bad thing though. So you're known for jumping on rumors and talking about title rumors a lot...so what?

[Quantumofsolace007]

Your reputation is what you make it. It doesn't have to be a bad thing though. So you're known for jumping on rumors and talking about title rumors a lot...so what?

true.

I do enjoy this board it's a nice place to sit back and talk 007.

[DaveBond21]

Time Will Tell (maybe that is the title...?!)

I like that as a title.

[Trident]

Time Will Tell (maybe that is the title...?!)

I like that as a title.

I'm voting for plain Bond as title. Short, downright simplistic even. Should be understood around the world (and I refrain here from any cheap shots at supposedly main markets whose audiences will have trouble understanding more than a single syllable). Added advantage: it's absolutely a Fleming title, isn't it? In a way...

EDIT

Further advantages: this approach would allow for a number of up-to-now unused Fleming titles such as

JAMES BOND (the given sequel to Bond)

007

RNVR BOND (ok, that would probably have to be explained)

and my personal favourite
COMMANDER BOND

[SecretAgentFan]

How about something a bit more modern like

Commanderbond.net ?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Time Will Tell (maybe that is the title...?!)

I like that as a title.

I'm voting for plain Bond as title. Short, downright simplistic even. Should be understood around the world (and I refrain here from any cheap shots at supposedly main markets whose audiences will have trouble understanding more than a single syllable). Added advantage: it's absolutely a Fleming title, isn't it? In a way...

EDIT

Further advantages: this approach would allow for a number of up-to-now unused Fleming titles such as

JAMES BOND (the given sequel to Bond)

007

RNVR BOND (ok, that would probably have to be explained)

and my personal favourite
COMMANDER BOND

Each as captivating and thought provoking as the last.

[Trident]

Time Will Tell (maybe that is the title...?!)

I like that as a title.

I'm voting for plain Bond as title. Short, downright simplistic even. Should be understood around the world (and I refrain here from any cheap shots at supposedly main markets whose audiences will have trouble understanding more than a single syllable). Added advantage: it's absolutely a Fleming title, isn't it? In a way...

EDIT

Further advantages: this approach would allow for a number of up-to-now unused Fleming titles such as

JAMES BOND (the given sequel to Bond)

007

RNVR BOND (ok, that would probably have to be explained)

and my personal favourite
COMMANDER BOND

Each as captivating and thought provoking as the last.

And: it would even open the door for a most spectacular progress in Bond's world,

CAPTAIN BOND after which the promotion to

COMMODORE BOND could round Bond's service as field agent for the SIS.


AND

all these titles would allow for the, by now mandatory, inclusion of the 007 into the title-fonds image.