1025 replies to this topic

[Trident]

Just two more weeks to go until MGM's latest (and hopefully last) extension expires - then we may see some forward movement from EON.

Bring on 23!

You are joking right. If we had a dollar for every time someone posted that very thought we would be able to fund BOND23 ourselves.

We'd be able to fund the series into the 30s. And buy the MGM scraps with the change...

[SecretAgentFan]

Good thing that this is no drinking game.

[Trident]

Good thing that this is no drinking game.

Are you sure it's not? One wonders...

[SecretAgentFan]

It certainly would explain many things.

[DamnCoffee]

Just two more weeks to go until MGM's latest (and hopefully last) extension expires - then we may see some forward movement from EON.

Bring on 23!

You are joking right. If we had a dollar for every time someone posted that very thought we would be able to fund BOND23 ourselves.

Agreed. I'm almost positive that this won't be MGM's last extension. Them bastards always seem to find a way to hang on. The thing is though, I just don't understand why, they know they aren't going to raise enough money, so there's no point in making BOND and HOBBIT suffer for it.

Let it go, MGM. Bond had to.

[Captain Tightpants]

Agreed. I'm almost positive that this won't be MGM's last extension. Them bastards always seem to find a way to hang on. The thing is though, I just don't understand why, they know they aren't going to raise enough money, so there's no point in making BOND and HOBBIT suffer for it.

Let it go, MGM. Bond had to.

They've no doubt fallen in love with the idea of being the James Bond studio, or just being a film studio to begin with, and don't want to part ways. In some ways they're like a child with a sick dog: they love their dog and the dog loves them, but it's in a lot of pain and needs to be put down. But the child doesn't understand that and wants to hang on because he doesn't want to lose his best friend, even though saying good-bye is what's best for the dog.

Either that, or they don't want the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer legacy to die with them (or because of them).

[captnash2]

wow, i opened a pandorica with this one.

[Simon]

They've no doubt fallen in love with the idea of being the James Bond studio, or just being a film studio to begin with, and don't want to part ways. In some ways they're like a child with a sick dog: they love their dog and the dog loves them, but it's in a lot of pain and needs to be put down. But the child doesn't understand that and wants to hang on because he doesn't want to lose his best friend, even though saying good-bye is what's best for the dog.

Either that, or they don't want the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer legacy to die with them (or because of them).

I sort of see the metaphor but the way you have described the situation is as though the child is MGM and the sick dog is Eon, which is clearly not the case.

Ultimately, if one is to understand the laws and paths of ownership, it should be a sick child with a healthy dog. But then the healthy dog can't 'let go' of the sick child or eat it because the dog would fall foul of a needle.

If we are to explore how to correct this, but to maintain as above, children owning dogs, and we understand that the sickness should be applied to the one owning, maybe we can say the sick child loves the dog and the dog loves the sick child, but the child does not know that its pus oozing and contagious measles is a dog's worst friend and that as a result of proximity to each other, the dog is likely to fall over too.

So a parent or guardian should advise that unless the sick child wants them both to die a miserable and pus-y mess, the child should let go of the erstwhile healthy crufts winner.

I think I've got it nailed there.

[MattofSteel]

Much as we might want them to, it makes zero business sense for MGM to just 'give up' the Bond rights under any circumstance, unless it involves the total sale of the studio at an appropriate figure. It would be the most counterproductive thing they could do in trying to strengthen their position.

MGM either receives capital to continue limping along with Bond, or they outright sell the whole mess. One approach already failed (in their eyes), so they're holding out until the Time Warner bid comes up from 1.5, or the other thing happens. They can hold out for a long time, and - idiotic as it is from a marketing point of view - they really don't give a about how badly we want Bond 23.

And yet, they're smart enough people to know that Bond 23 not being in theatres is good for no one. Hence their overall block-headedness about the entire thing.

[tdalton]

Much as we might want them to, it makes zero business sense for MGM to just 'give up' the Bond rights under any circumstance, unless it involves the total sale of the studio at an appropriate figure. It would be the most counterproductive thing they could do in trying to strengthen their position.

MGM either receives capital to continue limping along with Bond, or they outright sell the whole mess. One approach already failed (in their eyes), so they're holding out until the Time Warner bid comes up from 1.5, or the other thing happens. They can hold out for a long time, and - idiotic as it is from a marketing point of view - they really don't give a about how badly we want Bond 23.

And yet, they're smart enough people to know that Bond 23 not being in theatres is good for no one. Hence their overall block-headedness about the entire thing.

Excellent post.

MGM isn't going to give up the Bond rights, and they're not just going to give up and fold up shop either, and it wouldn't make much sense for them to do either at this point, especially when there are at least some other parties (Summit, Warner, Lionsgate, etc.) that are still to some degree interested in trying to either work with the studio or to, in the case of Lionsgate, merge with the studio.

[007SeanRogerGeorgeTimDan]

All I have to say is that stinks! I wish MGM would hurry up and get their stupid financial problems fixed.

[Captain Tightpants]

I sort of see the metaphor but the way you have described the situation is as though the child is MGM and the sick dog is Eon, which is clearly not the case.

I was thinking more that MGM - the company, its history, its reputation - is the dog and the people running it are the child.

[The Shark]

I sort of see the metaphor but the way you have described the situation is as though the child is MGM and the sick dog is Eon, which is clearly not the case.

I was thinking more that MGM - the company, its history, its reputation - is the dog and the people running it are the child.

The investors/studios are the vets?

[Germanlady]

MGM To Morph Into A Pure Production Play?
http://www.deadline....lay/#more-50490

[Captain Tightpants]

The investors/studios are the vets?

No. That just needlessly complicates the metaphor.

[Simon]

I sort of see the metaphor but the way you have described the situation is as though the child is MGM and the sick dog is Eon, which is clearly not the case.

I was thinking more that MGM - the company, its history, its reputation - is the dog and the people running it are the child.

Oh, but from that point of view, this would make Eon the flea to MGM's dog.

I am not sure this will do at all.

However, one could draw a parallel with the 'investors' comment above. In one scenario, they could be the vets and in another the exterminators.

How do you see this thought developing?

[Shrublands]

Oh, but from that point of view, this would make Eon the flea to MGM's dog.

Eon is more of a life-support machine keeping the knackered old mutt breathing, just.

[Captain Tightpants]

How do you see this thought developing?

Needlessly. My original intention was to develop a simple metaphor to describe how I felt about MGM's management: namely, that they are clinging onto the studio when the best thing to do would be to let it die with whatever dignity it has left rather than hang onto it and let it suffer more simply because they don't want to let go. Wther that is because they seem to think it will somehow survive its financial cancer or because they don't want to be the ones repsonsible for killing MGM's legacy is beside the point.

[Simon]

How do you see this thought developing?

Needlessly. My original intention was to develop a simple metaphor to describe how I felt about MGM's management.

I think there is always scope for development, progression of the human race and all that.

I think for a start it is worth observing that, as metaphor can be thought of as the currency of the emotional mind and the fact that you are looking to describe your feelings, or emotions, about MGM's management, I think your intentions are well placed if even the dogs are not.

Let me think about this some more...

[zencat]

What should we make of this? The Mirror is claiming an "exclusive" that Bond 23 is no longer "delayed" but "canned." Relevant paragraphs here:

Production crew were told in April the £132million blockbuster, starring Daniel Craig, had been postponed amid “financial problems” at debt-ridden movie studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which co-funded the film.

But now it has confirmed the movie has been axed – and it could be years before the secret agent with a licence to kill is back on the big screen.

A glum insider said: “Members of the production crew have been told the Bond film has been canned.

“There is a lot of bad feeling as a lot of time, money and hard work has already gone into this.”

American Beauty director Sam Mendes had been lined up to direct the 23rd flick in the franchise, which started with Dr No in 1962.

But production company EON confirmed in a statement yesterday: “We do not know when development will resume and cannot comment further at this stage.”

http://www.mirror.co...15875-22375892/

Is the Mirror just rehashing this? Or has there really been a further step toward oblivion?

[Matt_13]

Well, Barbara and Michael released a statement when production was delayed, I'm sure if they were to make a move this drastic they'd do the same thing. It sounds like so much work has already been put into it that it'd be silly for them just to say the hell with it. If they really DID say screw it, however, I hardly think we would find out from a leak. That's a pretty big decision that I feel would be released right away to the public in a press release. What all of this translates to is the following: Lord Jesus, I hope to God this is not true.


Also there's this: But production company EON confirmed in a statement yesterday: “We do not know when development will resume and cannot comment further at this stage.”

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.../#ixzz0sUK3cHok


Which translates to, IMO, We are delayed and don't know when MGM is going to get it's together.

[Trident]

Is the Mirror just rehashing this? Or has there really been a further step toward oblivion?

Nothing really new there. It was always clear the production couldn't be kept in limbo (with an option for a short-notice start) forever. Now the respective positions of MGM/debtholders and EON have probably become so firmly established that a short-notice restart is no longer an option. But we haven't actually moved further from BOND 23. We just never really have been closer to that production, probably even well before QOS. MGM was bound for a crash for years and nothing could have prevented it any more.

[Captain Tightpants]

That article reads like a typical tablid piece: written by someone with no understanding of the subject when and where they haven't just made things up. From the sounds of things, they're clearly under the impression that MGM and MGM alone makes the actual film, which everyone knows to be untrue.

[SecretAgentFan]

It makes for better news to report that no new Bond film will be made instead of reporting "The fate of MGM is still undecided"...

[DaveBond21]

Y'know, astonishingly, I don't think I really care whether or not BOND 23 ever comes to fruition. If, today, it was announced that EON had closed up shop, that the Bond franchise had reached its end, I would shrug and move on.

That general ambivalence probably best explains why most of my posts are in the "General Discussion" thread. I'm not too bothered about the future of Bond anymore, and while I'll still treasure the Bond novels and films of yore (or at least some of 'em), I feel, more or less, as though I've said what I have to say on that subject.

Time to move on, I suppose.

The James Bond movies will never end. They may have 20-year gaps, but they will always be resurrected, in the same way that dinosaur and sci-fi movies will always be around.

[The Shark]

Y'know, astonishingly, I don't think I really care whether or not BOND 23 ever comes to fruition. If, today, it was announced that EON had closed up shop, that the Bond franchise had reached its end, I would shrug and move on.

That general ambivalence probably best explains why most of my posts are in the "General Discussion" thread. I'm not too bothered about the future of Bond anymore, and while I'll still treasure the Bond novels and films of yore (or at least some of 'em), I feel, more or less, as though I've said what I have to say on that subject.

Time to move on, I suppose.

The James Bond movies will never end. They may have 20-year gaps, but they will always be resurrected, in the same way that dinosaur and sci-fi movies will always be around.

I think Harmsway's post was more about his general apathy towards the Bond franchise as of late, rather than the whether or not James Bond will return. That's about as certain as James Bond surviving at the end of each film. James Bond WILL return.

[JimmyBond]

Everyone becomes apathetic towards the series at one point or another. I felt the way he does back during the Brosnan years. Particularly following TND but before TWINE.

[marktmurphy]

The Mirror piece sounds believable to me; although I'm not really sure what it means if it's been canned: if production has a reason to start again it will do.

Doesn't really put us fans in much of a different position: Bond 23 is still a long time off. There will be one, you can rely on that: Bond is proven too lucrative and can be reinvented in so many ways; but not for a while.

I'm with Harmsway: not all that bothered right now. The quality tailed off so badly with the last one that my enthusiasm died off a bit.

[Zorin Industries]

"Canned" would be a term most "crewmembers" would use when the touted job was delayed - whereas the "management" would rather use "delayed". Sounds like either rubbish lazy journalism from a rubbish rag or disgruntled crew members who were not that close to the production anyway. One man's "canned" is another man's "delayed".

[Trident]

"Canned" would be a term most "crewmembers" would use when the touted job was delayed - whereas the "management" would rather use "delayed". Sounds like either rubbish lazy journalism from a rubbish rag or disgruntled crew members who were not that close to the production anyway. One man's "canned" is another man's "delayed".

That's what I was wondering. Where would there be much difference between either designation effectively? One might argue the second Lazenby Bond and the third Dalton entry are also delayed. Massively so even.