1025 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

ah crap! Just when things were finally back on track and the Bond series was awesome again.

[MattofSteel]

The Finke story (actually Mike Fleming writing it) doesn't add much, but hints at the unusual-ness of EON's press release.

Hmm.

[byline]

MGM is a sucky, sucky studio. I have seen rummage sales run better.

OK, that made me laugh out loud (and at a moment when I really needed a laugh). Thanks!

[Arbogast777]

I'm trying not to get too nervous about the situation but if there is even a 2 year delay 1) it wouldn't necessarily mean Craig is out but it would be the longest between Bond films for 1 actor, 2) you've got to think Judi Dench might hang it up at that point (she's 75 now after all) so it would at the least change the shap of the next film a bit, and 3) I've got to think it would cease all talk about whether or not Quantum/Mr. White would return in a new story.

In other words yes, even a slight delay could change things a bit.

Edited by Arbogast777, 20 April 2010 - 03:15 AM.

[A Kristatos]

Assuming the script has been thoroughly developed to this point, there's no reason to think that if the whole scenario isn't resolved by sometime in the summer, they couldn't prep for January 2011 shooting start and a late 2011 release. They'd still have months for location scouting, preproduction, casting, and script polishes.

Or am I being far too ambitious out of pure denial?

Oh boy! This is bad news, but hopefully as others have stated, this whole situation will get resolved quickly now that the news is out.

I was wondering too if they could continue scouting out locations and finishing the script during this down time. I would hope everything would be ready to go as soon as the MGM sale is complete.

I guess one could call this another symptom of the bad global economy, but with the money a Bond movie makes, you have to wonder why they would delay the closing this long!

[blueman]

I guess one could call this another symptom of the bad global economy, but with the money a Bond movie makes, you have to wonder why they would delay the closing this long!

Greed. MGM creditors want all they can get, from what I've read they'll be taking a huge bath anyways. Careful what you invest in.

[Dell Deaton]

Unfortunate.

But no real surprise.

[Lazenby]

Very sad news. Because of this indefinite delay, I feel that the franchise that we have recently grown accustom and endeared to will subsequently change. First, Daniel Craig is by far the best actor to have every played Bond. His schedule will be filling up, and being on the North side of 40, his window for marquee staring films is closing. By the time this mess gets sorted, I’m sure that it will be in conflict with a movie(s) that he will be involved contractually with. Second, I am also sure that Sam Mendes will go back to his development work on the “Preacher” movie and other projects. I am also quite confident that his schedule demand will preclude him from coming back to the series. In the end, Bond 23 will probably have a great script in search of a director and a Bond. When given adequate time EON has given us Daniel Craig, Martin Campbell and Casino Royale. They have earned our trust.

[Daddy Bond]

Here's perhaps a dumb question...but can EON produce a spy movie starring Craig that is NOT a true Bond movie???

[Jim]

Here's perhaps a dumb question...but can EON produce a spy movie starring Craig that is NOT a true Bond movie???

Someone hugely clever will doubtless observe that they did that with the last one.

As for the news - ah, the ways of corporate folk. I look forward to some years of anonymous usernames entering into debate about business strategies. We don't have John Gardner to keep us going this time so need to make our own entertainment.

[crheath]

This really sucks, mainly because Craig is just the right age to be playing Bond. By the time this all gets cleared up, he might be too old for the part, like Moore was in his later years.

[Daddy Bond]

This really sucks, mainly because Craig is just the right age to be playing Bond. By the time this all gets cleared up, he might be too old for the part, like Moore was in his later years.

I'm guessing (couldn't prove it) we'll still see a Bond movie in the next three years - and then Craig will still be good for one or two more Bonds.

[volante]

This really sucks, mainly because Craig is just the right age to be playing Bond. By the time this all gets cleared up, he might be too old for the part, like Moore was in his later years.

I'm guessing (couldn't prove it) we'll still see a Bond movie in the next three years - and then Craig will still be good for one or two more Bonds.

I do hope you're right.
Everything else pales into insignificance

Edited by volante, 20 April 2010 - 05:53 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Clever move by EON. More pressure on MGM.

This is all just strategy IMO. It will help to bring out BOND 23 earlier than it would have been had EON committed to the film under the current circumstances.

[Mr. Blofeld]

it would be the longest between Bond films for 1 actor

You forget the four-year-delay between Connery's last two EON films, or even between the latter and Never Say Never Again -- a whopping twelve years.

Nothing to worry about if Dan grows a few wrinkles; as long as we get our Bond, I'll be satisfied.

[Binyamin]

This really sucks, mainly because Craig is just the right age to be playing Bond. By the time this all gets cleared up, he might be too old for the part, like Moore was in his later years.

Well, people do seem to be ageing better nowadays... Moore started looking like a grandpa -- that was a function of his fitness, not so much his age. If Craig keeps in shape, it could work.

For example -- did you realize that Mark Harmon, Gibbs on NCIS, is nearly 60 years old?

This would work even moreso if they acknowledged an aging Bond -- actually, that would make an interesting decade-long four-story arc: A snapshot of Bond's career from first mission to becoming a veteran.... and providing the perfect hand-off for the next actor in 2016.

[jamie00007]

As far as I can tell, QoS' worldwide box-office - minus the distributors and cinemas' take - did not cover its production costs. Of course that depends on which budget figure you believe. No official figure has been released as far as I can tell.

Come on, its pretty easy to predict how much money a Bond movie is going to make at the cinema, they dont change much between films. There was no reason for Eon to ever believe QoS was going to make much more than it did (which was a lot). Why would a studio greenlight a movie that was unlikely to cover its costs? I've read people saying things like that before, that the movie needed to make like $800-900 to break even. Which is utterly ridiculous, why would they make a movie that has no chance of even breaking even. As if QoS was ever going to make that much more than CR. QoS was about as big a hit as Eon and MGM could have wanted. Maybe even more so considering how well it did in the US, better than Bond films usually do, and thats where the studios take the biggest cut from each ticket.

[bonds_walther]

This sucks. Big time.

Like others, I'm hoping that EON are forcing MGM's hand by coming out with this statement. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I just hope it's not 1989 all over again.

One thing i was thinking, and if someone on here can answer it I'd really appreciate it - can another company not just buy EON from MGM?

[spynovelfan]

Nikki Finke has been updating the story. Not a whole lot to go on, but she's been adding bits and pieces:

http://www.deadline....tely/#more-3370

Nikki Finke wrote:

So today's announcement comes via the PR newswire, untypical for EON Productions which operates always with the maximum amount of secrecy. Some showbiz news outlets are mistakenly claiming the next Bond movie, #23, is cancelled. Nope. You can see it's only been postponed. This is the same pic on which Sam Mendes has been wconsulting and ultimately as expected to direct. [SIC]

• Interesting that she picks up on the same idea many of us have had, namely that it is a move out of left-field for EON. In other words, it's NOT JUST a press release letting everyone know how the progress is not going on the next Bond film.
  
• Apparently, even when a source is legitimate, some other media outlets have problems keeping up with current events, and have been spreading news that the next Bond film has been cancelled rather than postponed.

Just read this. On your second bullet point, ie other media jumping in to say it's been cancelled - have they done that, in fact? I think that's just the typical bluster and 'I know more and am more in the know than others' of a Hollywood gossip column, isn't it? Everyone has reported that it's on hold, as far as I can see. She's late to the party, and is claiming to offer a corrective.

Her theory is that this is a power move, but it's one I don't think any of us mentioned, ie 'EON may have the right to take Bond elsewhere' and are positioning themselves to take Bond to another studio if they can: 'Broccoli and Wilson would love to move Bond to a fully functioning studio. Like Sony, where Amy Pascal is dying to keep the famous franchise. Or Fox, which handles Bond's DVD distribution. "It feels like EON is sending a message to MGM," one source tells us. "If they try to continue as a stand-alone studio, don't expect to be making any Bond films."' Is this possible? I don't really understand this stuff at all, to be honest, but from the posts here yesterday I thought it wasn't that simple at all, and part of the problem is that Eon are tied to MGM.

I should also say that Deadline just knocked back a fake tip I had emailed them (and several other sites) a few days ago, on the basis that their 'sources close to Eon' discounted it. The tip was about Anthony Hopkins replacing Judi Dench as M. I was glad they discounted this obvious but slightly plausible fabrication sent to them from someone they had never heard from before, and had checked it out, apparently with genuine sources close to the film, although the wording of it suggested to me they had been warned they might be sent a fake tip about Bond. But I now find it slightly strange that their 'sources close to Eon' chose to tell them that this silly fake tip was untrue, but not that Eon were on the verge of issuing a major and rare press release to say that, in fact, the entire film was indefinitely postponed, and that they did this about three hours before the press release was published. And yet straight after the press release was issued, these sources were happy to comment on its accuracy.

The media is our only source for information about any of this. If we want to know what may really be going on and discuss it, their reports are a legitimate subject to look at, I think. There are going to be a lot more Chinese whispers coming as a result of this press release. If my ranting and raving has done nothing else recently, I would hope it's enlightened a few people to the power of using Google and thinking things through a little.

[Col. Sun]

This doesn't come as a complete surprise. Only a day ago, Peter Jackson revealed that The Hobbit's in a similar holding pattern - unable to cast and lock things down until the MGM situation is sorted out. Jackson's comments may have spurred Eon to finally make a statement themselves.

Daniel Craig has quickly added his support to Eon, so I'm confident he'll still be Bond even if there's a six month or longer delay. It does, however, mean that unless Bond 24 follows on fast from Bond 23, Craig's run may end after his third film - and that would be a real shame.

Let's keep the faith.

[SecretAgentFan]

Does anybody have a clear understanding what rights MGM does have - and why SONY was allowed to do the last two films?

My understanding is that EON was delivering the films to be distributed by UA. Since UA folded into MGM (when was that - with "Octopussy"?) they were controlling the distribution rights.

[sevenil]

Just as a caution - I wouldn't draw too many parallels with the early 90s and Dalton's departure. Craig is much more successful and I doubt MGM will remain unresolved for much more than a year. Still, anything could happen.

I suspected this and I so hope this doesnt mark the end for DC but Id state that at the time Living Daylights was very successful and imho the reason LTK didnt make as much was the 15 certificate.

It still made money

[Col. Sun]

Just as a caution - I wouldn't draw too many parallels with the early 90s and Dalton's departure. Craig is much more successful and I doubt MGM will remain unresolved for much more than a year. Still, anything could happen.

I suspected this and I so hope this doesnt mark the end for DC but Id state that at the time Living Daylights was very successful and imho the reason LTK didnt make as much was the 15 certificate.

It still made money

I worked on LTK. We had a very good "private" preview and everyone loved the film, but when it came out the critics were pretty down on it and I recall after the cast and crew screening, many felt the film and Dalton lacked charm. I think the general audience didn't warm to Dalton, but they have warmed to Craig.

Eon, and whoever eventually take over MGM, will WANT Craig for as long as he's willing to stay. Craig appears committed to Bond even with this delay - I think the only thing going against him now is his age against the massive physical demands of the role now. Craig will be 43/44 when he does Bond 23 - but even at 45 for Bond 24 he's still be the same age Moore was when he started and Brosnan was for TWINE.

There's still a strong chance Craig will last for 2 more films - but I think we all know that there won't be a 5th one for him now.

[General G.]

This is damned depressing.

Potentially Dalton Redux. (Dan, we hardly knew ya.)

Just... great.

[JimmyBond]

Am I the only one looking at the upside to all this?

While I'm all for Craig staying in the role for many more films, there's also a certain amount of anticipation in seeing a new Bond film with a new Bond, and hey, if a delay means Dench is out than I'm all for that too!

I say bring on the next Bond film with Tony Scott directing a Bond film starring David Tennant as Bond

[Manta ray]

Oh. Oh no.

Oh yes ! It was SO obvious ! C'mon ! MGM has $3.7-billion in debt! And how many buyers ? NONE.

Edited by Manta ray, 20 April 2010 - 08:31 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Welp Zorin you were right Daniel will not be returning for bond 23.

...

If you look at a lot of Zorin's comment he was extremly ambiguous over wether Daniel Craig would return for another one or not.


It pains me to say this but i think the curse of the even numbered bond strikes again.

So here is an honest question I want the smarter members to answer is this entirely MGM's fault or if Eon had gotten working on bond 23 in 2008 could we be seing the third daniel craig bond film this fall?

MGM has not been the MGM of roaring lions, Gene Kelly, PINK PANTHER and ROCKY films for a long time. It has only been MGM in name and library content.

The MGM of now has been having on/off financial woes for years (decades even). Whilst the situation with Bond circa 1989 onwards was a very different scenario it underlines how MGM has been a fickle beast for a while. But it is in the movie game and there is nowt more fickle than that. Even sure-fire bets like Bond and LORD OF THE RINGS cannot save the financial future of one studio. We live in a multi-interest world. It is (sadly) no longer the domain of studio systems, in-house creativity and a clear chain of command. Like a lot of our businesses and providers (be it film, gas, electricity, phone networks or food production) everything has been diluted, the power diluted, the responsibilities diluted etc. 'MGM' is no different.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I hope this doesn't jeopardise my hope of having Craig go on to be the longest serving Bond, with 8 Bond films.

[Zorin Industries]

The ownership of Eon is unclear to me, but must be key to this debate.

I understand that Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson's interests are administered through Danjaq LLC, but does Danjaq own 100% of Eon? I assume MGM's continued leverage comes through the fact that it also owns a stake in Eon Productions, possibly dating back to Harry Saltzman's departure.

Eon is the production company, the film making house of Bond.

[sharpshooter]

I say bring on the next Bond film with Tony Scott directing a Bond film starring David Tennant as Bond

I know this will be shouted down, but Tennant would make an excellent Bond. An effortlessly stylish, charismatic Bond in the vein of Moore. He's just so likeable and is a good actor. That sort of approach after Craig could be just what the Doctor ordered.