1025 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

They suspended production indeffinately for a reason. The producers have reached a point in production where they are far enough along to start making the big moves, which would require at this stage capital. My guess is we won't see any form of movement on the picture until summer of next year at the earliest. I'm not too into all the business talk regarding the studio, so most of what we've been told has gone right over my head, but if I'm understanding things correctly, MGM's debt, while the biggest issue the studio faces, is not the ONLY problem it has, especially where EON are concerned. If SpyGlass were to take control (at this point the best looking option from a fans POV) then step one would be about 50% over.

A restructuring plan still needs to be composed which could take many more months (all the creditors are concerned with right now is the money, and as nice as it is to have fresh films coming out that will earn some, there is no way any number of films will dig the company out of the hole). After the studio is relatively stable with new CEO's or Chairmen or presidents or whatever the hell they're called, then the owners get to figure out how to finance their operations. THEN, once funds have been accumulated and divided between the studio's best opportunities (Bond/Hobbit), a director can be hired (whether or not that will be Mendes is beyond me, my guess is it won't be). After a director has been hired, location scouting can begin. After that, casting, script polishes, and all that fun stuff that we fans love to hear about. After all is said and done, chances are it'll be January of 2012, the world entering its final days of existence, with Bond 23 ready roll on it's first day of filming.

In the end, however, life goes on. Go Team Deaver!

[jamie00007]

Strange, I feel the opposite. I guess we all have different opinions, backed by different reasons for why we feel the way we do. (Well, duh! Restating the obvious, I know.) But with Craig, I had just begun feeling excited about the series . . . only to have it snatched away by MGM's bungling. So for me, this is all extremely disappointing.

Exactly the way I feel. The Craig era got me excited about the series again, something I hadnt felt in years. Though I was still heavily into the series, during the Brosnan era there wasnt much to be excited about, it was just going through the motions again and again. It wouldnt have worried me too much if the series ended as it was mostly the old films I was into anyway. But after CR, I was excited again.I thought we were looking at a new golden era of 007. Even after QoS, which I loved but didnt think was as good as CR, I was excited as it proved that the Bond films could go anywhere. Now, everything's off the rails again, we'll be lucky to even get Craig back. Who knows when we'll get another Bond movie. I feel kind of ripped off to be honest. I know that sounds silly, but I kind of feel like I've re-invested myself in the world of 007 for nothing.

The other thing that really disappoints me about all this is that if we are looking at another long break as looks likely, it kind of makes CR and QoS irrelevant in a way as both movies, good as they were as standalone films, were very much about relaunching and re-establishing Bond. Both his world and his character. Which is kind of rendered pointless if we dont get another Bond movie that acts as the payoff to all that. And then theres QUANTUM. Unlikely to be revisited if we dont get a movie for years and have a different actor. Making the build up in QoS kind of pointless.

[JimmyBond]

While I'm not as disappointed as this continuing gap as some here are. I'm also not ready to throw in the towel regarding Bond. I have never anticipated any movie as much as I do for the new Bond movie. Sitting there in the theaters watching the film unfold before me has never (and will never) be matched by anything other than a Bond film. Sure I had to endure the Brosnan years, but in retrospect it wasn't all bad, and despite feeling burned by the previous Brosnan outing, I was excited each and every time that gunbarrel appeared onscreen with Brosnan.

Craig's debut (and follow up film) have excited me in ways the Brosnan outings never did (that's not a dig at Brosnan btw, as I still find plenty of enjoyment from three of his four films).

I've more or less put my enthusiasm on hold for the moment, but that doesnt mean I'm not eagerly awaiting the next Bond film. Whether that's going to be the third Craig outing, or the debut of a new actor in the role, I'll be there. Because I don't consider myself a Brosnan fan, a Craig fan...or whoever. I'm a Bond fan, and when that next film is announced, I'll be happy.

[Germanlady]

How much influence in % have Babs and Michael, when it comes to decisions?

[Matt_13]

How much influence in % have Babs and Michael, when it comes to decisions?

Creatively I'd say about 80%. It IS their franchise. However the studio also has to approve of certain things. That's what makes the Craig casting so incredible (and for us lucky).

[Germanlady]

How much influence in % have Babs and Michael, when it comes to decisions?

Creatively I'd say about 80%. It IS their franchise. However the studio also has to approve of certain things. That's what makes the Craig casting so incredible (and for us lucky).

Thanks - but, in the end, when all parties legaly involved in Bond have - lets say - different opinions - are B/M able to overrule them or who is the big Boss here?
Because if they are, I see a good chance, they will push it forward as much as possible at the earliest possible point, as they really are Craig committed and want him to at least make one more.

Edited by Germanlady, 23 June 2010 - 09:35 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Thanks - but, in the end, when all parties legaly involved in Bond have - lets say - different opinions - are B/M able to overrule them or who is the big Boss here?
Because if they are, I see a good chance, they will push it forward as much as possible at the earliest possible point, as they really are Craig committed and want him to at least make one more.

I believe things will only be pushed forward when (and only when) the producers have secured a satisfactory backdrop against which they can make future Bond films.

[Matt_13]

Indeed. Babs and Mickey are nothing without funds. A studio cannot greenlight a movie until it has enough money to pay for production. Michael and Barbara only have power so far as creativity is concerned. Right now, though, I do believe they are very much interested in getting away from MGM, though I'm inclined to believe that if they were to make a move, it wouldn't be until Craig stepped down from the role, as he is far too popular to simply cast aside. I do honestly believe MGM's days holding on to the Bond franchise are numbered...007!!!!!!!!! Lolz.

[BoogieBond]

How much influence in % have Babs and Michael, when it comes to decisions?

Creatively I'd say about 80%. It IS their franchise. However the studio also has to approve of certain things. That's what makes the Craig casting so incredible (and for us lucky).

Thanks - but, in the end, when all parties legaly involved in Bond have - lets say - different opinions - are B/M able to overrule them or who is the big Boss here?
Because if they are, I see a good chance, they will push it forward as much as possible at the earliest possible point, as they really are Craig committed and want him to at least make one more.

Thats how I see it as well. They may well bite their lip if they get a decent deal from MGM in order to get Craig in 1(or 2) more films, whether Bond 23 is released in 2012 or 2013. It would be a shame to waste Craig as his performances as Bond have been so good, and Bond is still popular so MGM can be assured of some much needed wonga. The Bond films cost south of 200 million to produce so the capital has to be there first. It would be a concern if MGM tried to make a Bond film "On the cheap" which I just cannot see happening.

[Quantumofsolace007]

As much as I know Zorin Captain and MHarkin (who I Swear i have no problem with) are going to say i'm stupid for asking this I'm still a firm believer in there is no such thing as a stupid question


If this goes through does this mean Bond 23 might come out in 2011? or is that still a pipedream irregardless of another company buying MGM.

IF the Spyglass deal goes through before mid-July, I don't think I would want Bond 23 being released in 2011. unless they really have quite a bit of pre-production already done (which I doubt) trying to rush the film in the cinema by November 2011 would just give us a rushed Bond film. I would prefer they shoot for a Summer 2012 release and took the extra 6 months to really get the film right.

I think they have quite a lot of pre-production work done. I think it's safe to say that EON are still hard at work on Bond 23, even though being officially delayed. I think the Bond team never really stop working.

I agree Mharkin.




If the spyglass thing actually works and they give EON a deal they like I can see Bond 23 coming out next year. Mind you this means it might be directed by Sam Mendes and written by Neal Purvis Robert Wade and Peter Morgan I'm ok with that but others on this board might not be.

[Harmsway]

If only CASINO ROYALE had been the final film - there's no possibility of the Bond series ever ending on more of a high than that.

Well, theoretically it's easy enough for me to imagine a better film than CASINO ROYALE. But realistically, I can't see it ever happening. EON might have grown a pair of balls, but they need bigger ones if they're going to exceed what CASINO ROYALE pulled off.

Filmwise, though, there are other franchises to get excited about: BATMAN BEGINS 3 is coming, as is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV. Bourne looks set for a codename theory reboot under Tony Gilroy, while DIE HARD 5 is a possibility and an EXPENDABLES sequel seems likely. I think us action junkies can live without more Bond for a bit.

Of all that, I only care for Nolan's BATMAN 3. I don't think the world will be any better for the presence of the other films you mention. While I can go for an action film now and again, I'm not particularly an action junkie, and I'm suffering from a real case of loathing for franchises. I want interesting, original projects, which seem to be quite rare in Hollywood these days. Even Pixar seems to be more or less sequel-dependent, with TOY STORY 3 getting its release now, and CARS 2 and MONSTER'S INC. 2 in the pipeline (plus talk of an INCREDIBLES follow-up).

[Loomis]

Filmwise, though, there are other franchises to get excited about: BATMAN BEGINS 3 is coming, as is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV. Bourne looks set for a codename theory reboot under Tony Gilroy, while DIE HARD 5 is a possibility and an EXPENDABLES sequel seems likely. I think us action junkies can live without more Bond for a bit.

Of all that, I only care for Nolan's BATMAN 3. I don't think the world will be any better for the presence of the other films you mention.

Well, smart money would say that BATMAN BEGINS 3 will be by some distance the cream of that particular crop, although topping THE DARK KNIGHT is certainly a tall order, and it may be that the next film will be the GODFATHER III to TDK's GODFATHER II (mind you, I like GODFATHER III).

On the other hand, perhaps it'll be superior to TDK - who knows? (Just as I have a hard time picturing a new Bond film superior to CASINO ROYALE, I raise my eyebrows at the idea of a Batflick that betters TDK, but I guess Nolan's in it to win it and time will tell.)

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV I view as notable by virtue of being Brad Bird's move into live action. I'm a fan of Bourne (although I hope for more substance next time round), and I'm curious to see how they'll pull it off without Damon and Greengrass - besides, if 007 is going to be on hold for the next few years then Bourne's the closest substitute.

The world would certainly be no better for the presence of another LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, but I have a hunch (probably misplaced) that Willis has been looking enviously at his buddy Stallone's grit and gore in RAMBO and EXPENDABLES and will wish to return John McClane to his R-rated and relatively down-to-earth roots. Indeed, as a DIE HARD franchise fan who views the last two as disappointments, I'd argue that the series needs its ROCKY BALBOA or RAMBO to give it a decent sendoff in the spirit of the original flick.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

In the end, when all parties legaly involved in Bond have - lets say - different opinions - are B/M able to overrule them or who is the big Boss here?

My understanding is that the rights are split evenly, so both parties have to be creatively and financially in synch in order for things to move forward.

I don't believe that either EON or MGM has the power to make any unilateral decisions.

But EON does have the right of refusal. If they really want out of their MGM deal, they may refuse to make another film with the studio even if MGM ponies up the funds.

[Double-0-Seven]

I don't have much knowledge of the business, nor have I gone through these reports thoroughly, but I really think MGM should give the franchise up. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm trying to figure out what's going on, but would MGM letting go of the franchise mean EON could move forward with another studio?

Also, wouldn't selling the rights of the Bond films bring in some extra cash for MGM?

I can understand why they would try to hold on though. After all, the Bond films are their biggest seller. If they lose those, then they lose their main source of income.

As a selfish fan, I can say that I hope for the sake of the movie-going public and every other Bond fan that MGM just sells off the series, EON finds a new home, and we can get things rolling!

That beind said, I'd kind of miss the lion at the beginning.

[Harmsway]

Well, smart money would say that BATMAN BEGINS 3 will be by some distance the cream of that particular crop, although topping THE DARK KNIGHT is certainly a tall order, and it may be that the next film will be the GODFATHER III to TDK's GODFATHER II (mind you, I like GODFATHER III).

FWIW, I like GODFATHER III, too. Gets a bad rap, and yeah, it's the weakest and least necessary of the three films, but it's not an insult to the previous two, either. It still has some fine moments.

I can conceive of a BATMAN 3 that's superior to THE DARK KNIGHT, but it would do so by being a smaller, tighter, and cleaner film than THE DARK KNIGHT. If Nolan thinks he can top THE DARK KNIGHT's scale, well, I think he's a bit nuts. Even if he shoots the whole thing in IMAX, as he's apparently planning to do, I think he'll run into trouble. But who knows? Maybe he really can pull it off.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV I view as notable by virtue of being Brad Bird's move into live action. I'm a fan of Bourne (although I hope for more substance next time round), and I'm curious to see how they'll pull it off without Damon and Greengrass - besides, if 007 is going to be on hold for the next few years then Bourne's the closest substitute.

Hm. I guess I'd rather see a new spy franchise helmed by Brad Bird than another M:I installment (or another Bourne film, for that matter). As I said, I'm suffering from a severe loathing of franchises at the moment. Almost everything at the movie theater is seeming a bit too familiar.

[Germanlady]

What does this mean?

WHY NOW? Baffling Resurgence Of Rumor About MGM-Lionsgate Merger Talks

I'm being told there's really nothing new with these explanatary conversations. And, anyway, Lionsgate can't do any kind of deal with MGM unless the studio management brokers some settlement with 32% shareholder Carl Icahn, who has made it clear he won't approve any big buys by the studio right now. Strange that this is coming on the heels of reports that Spyglass is in the lead to run MGM.

..read on..
http://www.deadline....er-talks-rumor/

Edited by Germanlady, 24 June 2010 - 07:20 AM.

[blueman]

Grrr.

As to Bond enthusiasm, Craig's are the best Bond films EON has made since the 60s, so super-excited about the franchise's future at this point. Be nice to never see the self-parody elements ever again, and as CR and QOS have shown, you can put a lot of Bond on the screen without them and be very successful. Win-win.

[Zorin Industries]

How much influence in % have Babs and Michael, when it comes to decisions?

A lot.

[JimmyBond]

Be nice to never see the self-parody elements ever again, and as CR and QOS have shown, you can put a lot of Bond on the screen without them and be very successful. Win-win.

I wouldn't be adverse to seeing the series delve into self parody again. Of course I'd only be up for that type of Bond film if it wasn't headlined by Daniel Craig. Be interesting to see where the producers take the franchise when Craig steps down from the series.

[jamie00007]

The self-parody comes back, I'm gone. You can have a lot of humor and fantasy and give the films a real Bond feel without becoming a self-parody.

[Germanlady]

The self-parody comes back, I'm gone. You can have a lot of humor and fantasy and give the films a real Bond feel without becoming a self-parody.

I believe, they won´t ever go back to the goofy Bond. These times are over and audiences wouldn´t accept it. But they wanted to go via the more traditional Bond anyway, which might mean Moneyp., Q etc. but not the larger than life attitude, the films used to have IMO.

[Loomis]

I can conceive of a BATMAN 3 that's superior to THE DARK KNIGHT, but it would do so by being a smaller, tighter, and cleaner film than THE DARK KNIGHT. If Nolan thinks he can top THE DARK KNIGHT's scale, well, I think he's a bit nuts. Even if he shoots the whole thing in IMAX, as he's apparently planning to do, I think he'll run into trouble. But who knows? Maybe he really can pull it off.

To be honest, and writing as someone who couldn't give a about Batman unless it's the Nolanverse, the "scale" was the one big selling point about THE DARK KNIGHT, as far as I'm concerned. I want another eyepopping epic.

I fear that "a smaller, tighter, and cleaner film" would mean another BATMAN BEGINS, which is marred by its studio-bound second half. And weren't the Burton and Schumacher films shot on soundstages as well? No, give me more Michael Mann-esque cityscapes and real locations like Hong Kong. Give me the scope and grandeur of THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Harmsway]

I fear that "a smaller, tighter, and cleaner film" would mean another BATMAN BEGINS, which is marred by its studio-bound second half.

How does "a smaller, tighter, cleaner film" translate into a studio-bound bit of formulaic blockbuster filmmaking? I don't want another BATMAN BEGINS.

Anyway, we're getting quite off-topic.

[byline]

The Craig era got me excited about the series again, something I hadnt felt in years. Though I was still heavily into the series, during the Brosnan era there wasnt much to be excited about, it was just going through the motions again and again. It wouldnt have worried me too much if the series ended as it was mostly the old films I was into anyway. But after CR, I was excited again.I thought we were looking at a new golden era of 007. Even after QoS, which I loved but didnt think was as good as CR, I was excited as it proved that the Bond films could go anywhere. Now, everything's off the rails again, we'll be lucky to even get Craig back. Who knows when we'll get another Bond movie. I feel kind of ripped off to be honest. I know that sounds silly, but I kind of feel like I've re-invested myself in the world of 007 for nothing.

My thoughts, exactly . . . only you expressed them far better than I did.

Well, smart money would say that BATMAN BEGINS 3 will be by some distance the cream of that particular crop, although topping THE DARK KNIGHT is certainly a tall order, and it may be that the next film will be the GODFATHER III to TDK's GODFATHER II (mind you, I like GODFATHER III).

So do I; just feel that it didn't measure up to its predecessors (though that would have been a tall order to fill, no matter what they did). I felt that if they had kept Robert Duvall (instead of deciding that he was too expensive, and so killing off his character before the story even started) and made Tom fulfill the same betrayal function that Eli Wallach's character did, that would have made all the difference. With Tom out of the picture, I just felt the story was . . . unfinished, somehow.

Edited by byline, 24 June 2010 - 02:30 PM.

[Loomis]

Yes, Duvall is sorely missed in THE GODFATHER PART III. There's a couple of other things wrong with the film (although not Sofia Coppola - I can't for the life of me understand why she's slammed so much), but overall it's another terrific piece of Corleone entertainment.

[Harmsway]

There's a couple of other things wrong with the film (although not Sofia Coppola - I can't for the life of me understand why she's slammed so much)

I don't find her unbearable, but Sofia Coppola is a pretty poor actress. For one thing, her dialogue delivery is extremely flat (and that's putting it kindly).

[BoogieBond]

The self-parody comes back, I'm gone. You can have a lot of humour and fantasy and give the films a real Bond feel without becoming a self-parody.

Agreed. And CR hits that particular balance very well. There's enough humour and wit, and enough of Bond enjoying himself (at the beginning) and epic action(the parkour scene), that goes back to a From Russia with Love or a Goldfinger.
And I think you could introduce the odd gadget or two into the equation equivalent to the briefcase in FRWL or the like. Hell, the acclaimed The Dark Knight is full if gadgets and audience pleasing epic moments that may well benefit Bond 23 going back to. Without OTT silly moments or unnecessary baggage and formula.

Edited by BoogieBond, 24 June 2010 - 04:24 PM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

What does this mean?

WHY NOW? Baffling Resurgence Of Rumor About MGM-Lionsgate Merger Talks

I'm being told there's really nothing new with these explanatary conversations. And, anyway, Lionsgate can't do any kind of deal with MGM unless the studio management brokers some settlement with 32% shareholder Carl Icahn, who has made it clear he won't approve any big buys by the studio right now. Strange that this is coming on the heels of reports that Spyglass is in the lead to run MGM.

..read on..
http://www.deadline....er-talks-rumor/

Ok now i'm really confused.


It will be interesting once MGM is worked out what this will mean for bond 23?

[Zorin Industries]

What does this mean?

WHY NOW? Baffling Resurgence Of Rumor About MGM-Lionsgate Merger Talks

I'm being told there's really nothing new with these explanatary conversations. And, anyway, Lionsgate can't do any kind of deal with MGM unless the studio management brokers some settlement with 32% shareholder Carl Icahn, who has made it clear he won't approve any big buys by the studio right now. Strange that this is coming on the heels of reports that Spyglass is in the lead to run MGM.

..read on..
http://www.deadline....er-talks-rumor/

Ok now i'm really confused.


It will be interesting once MGM is worked out what this will mean for bond 23?

Yeah - "once" it is worked out....

Meanwhile we will have to make do with Daniel Craig in a spy role in THE NEW TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER made from out-takes from the Steve Martin films.

[Orion]

What does this mean?

WHY NOW? Baffling Resurgence Of Rumor About MGM-Lionsgate Merger Talks

I'm being told there's really nothing new with these explanatary conversations. And, anyway, Lionsgate can't do any kind of deal with MGM unless the studio management brokers some settlement with 32% shareholder Carl Icahn, who has made it clear he won't approve any big buys by the studio right now. Strange that this is coming on the heels of reports that Spyglass is in the lead to run MGM.

..read on..
http://www.deadline....er-talks-rumor/

Ok now i'm really confused.


It will be interesting once MGM is worked out what this will mean for bond 23?

Yeah - "once" it is worked out....

Meanwhile we will have to make do with Daniel Craig in a spy role in THE NEW TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER made from out-takes from the Steve Martin films.

Surely such a project (also being MGM owned) would get as far as the planning stages before being put on "Indefinite Hiatus"

It really is getting ridiculous at how hard MGM is holding on despite not actually being able to to make and distribute films.