1025 replies to this topic

[Col. Sun]

Why can't MGM just sell Bond? It's their only way out. Let's face it. James Bond is a cash cow, and could possibly be the only way to stop them from filing bankruptcy. Think how much it could go for.

Danjaq / Eon needs funding for any film. Bond needs a lot of money to travel the world, launch to the world and entertain the world. Yes, a lot of cash gets wasted daily on inept titles like TRANSFORMERS 3 and CLASH OF THE TITANS but Eon (I imagine) would not want to get "into bed" with transient financiers. That could prove worse than

Danjaq/Eon/The Broccoli Family have got their hands burnt too many times before over studios and financial ownership. This "retraction" of production is Bond management playing it safe and cautious.

Bond and its world means A HELL OF A LOT to the players at Eon. "Family" is a word bandied around and that is not strong enough to describe the tight unit, creative experience and loyalties in that one production house - the 'last corner shop on the Lot' as someone once said to me. The Broccoli family do not need the "money" (which seems crass to even suggest). They do not use Bond films to make money. Yes, they need the films to make a profit for everyone involved, but it is more important to get the creative conditions (be it a script or studio money men) right, airtight and beneficial to all involved.

Working relationships are vital in the film industry - as they no doubt are everywhere else in life. Danjaq/Eon have a long history of working relationships with people from all sectors of the film making world - financiers, insurers etc. Their reputation is no doubt important to them and this MGM "uncertainty" challenges and potentially threatens that.

Totally agree with you here.

Also, with Peter Jackson coming out and saying The Hobbit is also hanging in limbo (although the film is further down the line in pre-production terms), I think the pressure is really on MGM now to choose a path.

Reckon we might see some interesting developments over the next couple of months re: MGM's hold over Bond.

[Skudor]

Some more speculation by The Times (towards the end):

Some Hollywood sources suggest that EON is keen to exploit the situation to engineer a move to a more powerful distributor.

[sharpshooter]

For whatever reason, I hope nobody quotes DominicGreene's, er, post.

[MRW007]

[Daniel Craig is reportedly backing Eon’s decision to halt development of the latest James Bond film. BBC News quotes the actor as saying, “I have every confidence in Barbara [Broccoli] and Michael [G. Wilson]’s decision and look forward to production resuming as quickly as possible.”]

Thank god! I can't picture any other actor to play James Bond. If Craig didn't come back, I would be done with seeing James Bond movies. There's no better actor than Daniel Craig.

[bond 16.05.72]

Oh well life goes on, It's gutting yes but I'm sure many of us have more important things going on in our lives. It's annoying but blaming people isn't going to get us anywhere.

I would see this as EON saying enough is enough to MGM we aren't going ahead with you in the state you are in, they needed to make a statement as all the specualtion is frankly been ridiculous at times, this at least lets us know the score.

I hope Craig sticks around but I also think this indefinite statement isn't as doom laden as some and Bond 23 will be back up and running quicker than you think, at least I'm optimistic it will.

[DamnCoffee]

[Zorin Industries]

Unfortunate tag advertising there on the Youtube clip, MHarkin...

"Preparing for retirement...?"

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm confused


Half the board is saying this means Daniel Craig won't return and this is depressing news


the other half thinks this means bond 23 will be coming soon and Craig will come back.


I'm quite confused. Zorin my sense of sanity what is going on?

[DamnCoffee]

I'm confused


Half the board is saying this means Daniel Craig won't return and this is depressing news


the other half thinks this means bond 23 will be coming soon and Craig will come back.


I'm quite confused. Zorin my sense of sanity what is going on?

...

It's called public opinion.

[FLEMINGFAN]

No surprise to this whole turn of events and I am sure all parties involved (Wilson, Broccoli, Craig) are breathing a sign of relief so that they can pursue projects that they are much more interested in.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm confused


Half the board is saying this means Daniel Craig won't return and this is depressing news


the other half thinks this means bond 23 will be coming soon and Craig will come back.


I'm quite confused. Zorin my sense of sanity what is going on?

...

It's called public opinion.

Interesting.

I say we hold a bake sale for bond 23 to get started again



Honestly I think I'll pop back over when I get an email of a new topic discussion which will hopefully be "bond 23 coming out 11-18-2011 Sam Mendes to Direct And the title will be The Property of a Lady"

[spynovelfan]

Some more speculation by The Times (towards the end):

Some Hollywood sources suggest that EON is keen to exploit the situation to engineer a move to a more powerful distributor.

I think they may have just taken that from the Deadline piece. Is what Deadline suggested even possible, though?

[Zorin Industries]

I always saw myself as a sense of Xanadu rather than sanity....(!)

It means what it says on the tin. BOND 23 has been put on a hold as Danjaq/Eon cannot continue production with this massive MGM sized question mark over proceedings. It is "indefinite" as Eon cannot* foresee a time when BOND 23 can officially continue down a path that has to - at some point - lead to final scripting, casting, pre-production and shooting as funds are needed to take those elements the full distance.

(*I say "cannot" as they will know a lot more than they can comment on / or want to comment on - not in any secretive way, just in a cautious way)

Daniel Craig is their and the audience's Bond of choice. If this situation resolves itself in - as an example - three months time then that will still be the case. If it is resolved in - as an example - three years time, that can also still be the case. But people's lives evolve and their decisions and circumstances evolve too, so Daniel Craig's situation may change - and he may cease to be Bond.

But right now, it is a hold, a cessation, a pause - and no-one is going anywhere. And it will be a pause that Eon House no doubt use to their favour in all sorts of ways. They are not naive.

[spynovelfan]

Funny. She made the same mistake as zencat re MGM having 'to dismiss' the idea that Morgan had quit! It was in the Telegraph piece. The Telegraph reporter got a tip on Marber: MGM refused to confirm it. That's it. And, of course, Marber being Mendes' choice depends on Mendes having been in discussions in the first place, etc, facedesk...

[Royal Dalton]

Our very own ACE was on Sky News just now talking about this.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Our very own ACE was on Sky News just now talking about this.

What as ACE or he has a real name?

[SecretAgentFan]

Our very own ACE was on Sky News just now talking about this.

What did he say? Is there a Youtube-snippet?

[Matt_13]

Our very own ACE was on Sky News just now talking about this.

Neat

[Royal Dalton]

He just said that Bond had been in a similar situation before (89-95) and that he hoped the MGM situation would be resolved quickly, so they could get the next film out for 2012. He also bigged up Craig, mentioned Sam Mendes, Purvis and Wade and Peter Morgan, and that he thought that the next one would be more of a traditional Bond film than the last two were.

[RazorBlade]

I haven't read all the posts. But scanning them I see a lot of frustration but little understanding. The fact is it is not the Dalton scenario of 89 whatever that was supposed to be. What has happened is that the world has changed. The way movies are going to be made and marketed is changing. Big films like the bond series or star trek may get to continue for a time. But smaller films, that has changed now.

I'm a screen writer. I used to live in hope that I would get a big studio deal. Now that is gone. Like the wind. What happened? A lot of things but at the heart of it is the way the internet is used, or can be, to distribute movies. No more heavy cans of film sent around the country. No more windows either. By "windows" I mean that it used to be a film opened in the domestic theater, then foreign, then paid cable, then VHS or DVD then free TV.

Now someone like me who wants to express themselves releases a film by putting it up on something like 40 or more platforms. Amazon.com, iTunes, youtube, koldcast.tv and on and on. Available all over the world 24/7. The revenue streams from each aren't big, but they add up. Welcome to the new reality. I hope to start making a good living doing this soon.

What this means is that even 2 years ago, MGM would have had no problem selling for $5billion. Now, the company would be lucky to a billion 1.5. In dollars, a currency that is slowly being devalued. We are seeing the shrinking of the entertainment industry; its deflation. MGM will be the first casuality. But the others aren't far behind. The reason MGM can't raise the money they could have 2 years ago is that the money isn't there anymore. No one wants to invest money that doesn't have a clear path of repayment.

There are a couple of things we can do as fans. One of the new things is COD: cinema on demand. Right now, most all of us can go to our like movie palace and ask for a "bond day". The deal is if you and your friends get enough ticket sales together you can go watch your favorite bond films- all day if you want. The local theater may not advertise this but they know about it. And they will do it because they want to sell tickets. All the theater has to do is download the film off the net and away we go. How do they have to pay to download as opposed to paying for shipping large cans of film? Or buying the rights to show it from the studio? They are paying less and that means there is less to be made from distributing movies.

The other thing is called crowd sourcing. Or in our case fan funding. We can use the platform of commandbond.net to raise the money from the fans for bond23. We prepay for our tickets. Now MGM can't raise the "investment" money. But as fans we are not looking to own the rights to the film, we want to see it. That puts us in a very different position than an investment banker. And MGM isn't limited to just selling tickets. For different levels, read that varying amounts or money, you can escalate up the ladder. For $10, you get a ticket to the movie. For $15 you get the download. For $25 you get either one and a crew tee shirt. Up to for $10,000.00 you are an extra and share a line with Daniel Craig! They may want to make that $50,000.00. Whatever. Other performers have used crowd sourcing successfully and released albums, movies and books.

It's possible and we can still get our movie. MGM will get the money they can't raise now. And development on bond23 will continue.

I'll start another thread on this but think about it. What do you say?

[Lachesis]

Some stars age better than others. Don't know yet how Craig will age, but everyone else you've mentioned above stayed in their film franchise too long, with the possible exception of Brosnan.

I felt Brosnan was showing his age in DAD, although part of the problem was his early Grizzly Adams look which seemed to emphasise his years, an impression that never quite disapeared when he got cleaned up....or maybe it was the film that aged me =/?

[byline]

As many others have mentioned already - my question is; have we seen Craig as Bond for the last time? Sadly, I think so.

Argh, I was feeling a bit better till I read this.

[Col. Sun]

As many others have mentioned already - my question is; have we seen Craig as Bond for the last time? Sadly, I think so.

Argh, I was feeling a bit better till I read this.

Don't panic!

Craig is still Bond and, unless Bond 23 is put back for more than a couple of years, he'll remain Bond.

I suspect we're gonna see Bond 23 in 2012 now and it'll be the 50th anniversary film with Craig.

[Loomis]

Pierce Brosnan - 49 years old in DIE ANOTHER DAY

Harrison Ford - 66 years old in INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

Arnold Schwarzenegger - 56 years old in TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES

Sylvester Stallone - 60 years old in ROCKY BALBOA, 62 years old in RAMBO and 64 years old in THE EXPENDABLES

Bruce Willis - 52 years old in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD/DIE HARD 4.0

Sharon Stone....BASIC INSTINCT 2 at 48

You forgot to mention Roger Moore at 57 in A VIEW TO A KILL.

I didn't forget. I didn't mention him because I didn't feel it was relevant to mention him. I was trying to cite 50+ actors (or, in Brosnan's case, almost 50+) who'd successfully played action heroes in hit films in recent years.

Don't know yet how Craig will age, but everyone else you've mentioned above stayed in their film franchise too long, with the possible exception of Brosnan.

Nonsense. INDIANA JONES 4 wasn't a bad film because of Ford's age - it was a bad film because it was shoddily scripted and indifferently directed. There was nothing wrong with Ford.

Similarly, Bruce's age wasn't one of the problems with DIE HARD 4.0. And Stallone continues to rock the house in his sixties - if he and Craig were to get into a fight, Craig would have his pasty white limey handed to him.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

We can use the platform of commandbond.net to raise the money from the fans for bond23. We prepay for our tickets. Now MGM can't raise the "investment" money. But as fans we are not looking to own the rights to the film, we want to see it. That puts us in a very different position than an investment banker. And MGM isn't limited to just selling tickets. For different levels, read that varying amounts or money, you can escalate up the ladder. For $10, you get a ticket to the movie. For $15 you get the download. For $25 you get either one and a crew tee shirt. Up to for $10,000.00 you are an extra and share a line with Daniel Craig! They may want to make that $50,000.00. Whatever. Other performers have used crowd sourcing successfully and released albums, movies and books.

It's possible and we can still get our movie. MGM will get the money they can't raise now. And development on bond23 will continue.

I'll start another thread on this but think about it. What do you say?

EON isn't some struggling independent that needs to rely on fan charity in order to raise money.

The issue preventing Bond 23 from moving forward is that EON is tied to MGM, and MGM is a terminal case that refuses to die.

My hope is that the press release is EON's way of telling MGM "we're done with you - you can continue to limp along for as long as you like, but we're not making any more Bond films with you."

If the studio's creditors realize that they won't be able to count on the income from a new Bond film, they may press for a sale of assets/bankruptcy sooner, rather than continuing to try to prop up a failed company.

[dodge]

I don't think we have to worry about Dan being too old, but he may well lose interest if it's 5-7 years between film. I also fear we'll lose the thrust of the intriguing story arc that he'd been on: CraigBond's evolution through 3-4 films into the Bond we all know and love.

[AliasTheJester]

The latest ROCKY and RAMBO films were not record breakers, but they were profitable films and I imagine they performed (at least) up to expectations. Besides, it's not as if anyone else could have made them.

As for Bond 23's "indefinite" suspension, with reports turning up on many websites it seems as if this announcement has gathered more attention than I suspect any news of the film's advancement would have done (outsied of anything truly spectacular)... who knows, maybe this will do the film some good?

[RazorBlade]

My reply to Gravity and Rufus is that this isn't a matter of competition among studios and MGM can't compete anymore. There is a change in the way business is done not just in Hollywood but around the world. Lots of movies among all the studios aren't be funded right now. There are no stronger studios to shepphard Bond because they don't or won't exist in a just a few short years.

Now I refer everyone to my new thread here:
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=57882

[byline]

As many others have mentioned already - my question is; have we seen Craig as Bond for the last time? Sadly, I think so.

Argh, I was feeling a bit better till I read this.

Don't panic!

Craig is still Bond and, unless Bond 23 is put back for more than a couple of years, he'll remain Bond.

I suspect we're gonna see Bond 23 in 2012 now and it'll be the 50th anniversary film with Craig.

OK, I feel better now!

I posted this news over on a University of Kentucky basketball forum -- hardly the bastion of hardcore Bond fandom that we have here -- and it was met with universal dismay. So I have to believe that kind of popular support for Craig's era as Bond, and the kind of general unhappiness this news will generate, will move things along somehow.

[Loomis]

Sharon Stone....BASIC INSTINCT 2 at 48

Too old to be showing her off.

Not from where I'm standing.

Well, yeah, there was that. But Ford couldn't elevate the material. 30 years ago he'd have taken clunker dialogue and situations and turned lemons into lemonade. He was too old for this film. It's a young man's game, and he's no spring chicken. ... All of the films you mentioned also suffered some form of critical drubbing, but, in the case of a few, also met box office indifference. DIE HARD 4.0 was modestly successful. RAMBO IV and ROCKY 6....not so much. DAD was considered the worst of the Brosnan films, as was T3. You may say the actors had nothing to do with the quality of the script, but I could also proffer the possibility that the writers were simply uninspired to be creative armed with the knowledge of who the lead actor was going to be.

True, none of those films did AVATAR-style box office business, but, still, they were all solid hits, and largely on the pulling power of their stars. No one cared about a Terminator flick with Christian Bale and Sam Worthington, and I personally wouldn't wish to see Indy played by anyone other than Ford. Neither do I feel that the Rocky and Rambo franchises should have been rebooted with younger actors than Sly (although I'm sure we'll see the awful day when that happens). I remain to be convinced that those recent action sequels were ruined by clapped-out old men in the lead roles. I mean, watch DIE HARD 4.0 - Willis' charisma (even on relatively low wattage) is pretty much all that that film has got going for it.