Shaken 007 producers put James Bond on ice

[Blowfeld]

Not surprisingly, the producers of the James Bond franchise have put the brakes on developing and producing the next installment of the 007 spy series because of the ongoing drama plaguing the franchise's home studio, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

"Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development of 'Bond 23' indefinitely," producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of Eon Productions said in a prepared statement. "We do not know when development will resume and do not have a date for the release of 'Bond 23,' " which is the sequel to "Quantum of Solace," released by MGM's co-financing partner Sony Pictures in 2008.

The sequel was previously scheduled for release in late 2011 or in 2012 to coincide with the franchise's 50th anniversary. Director Sam Mendes had been helping develop the script with an eye toward potentially directing the movie. A production start date had not been set.

MGM had no official comment on the development. But a person close to the studio, who wasn't authorized to talk about it on the record, said, "It was not unexpected given all the uncertainty and the ongoing process." Broccoli and Wilson, who took over the Bond franchise in 1995 from Albert "Cubby" Broccoli, Broccoli's father and Wilson's stepfather, could not be reached for comment.

Saddled with $3.7 billion in debt, MGM's lenders have been pushing for either a sale of the company or a restructuring with an infusion of capital to remain a stand-alone operation. A number of different plans, as well as a $1.5 billion bid by Warner Bros. parent Time Warner Inc. are still under review. But any resolution is not expected for several more weeks, according to the person.

--Claudia Eller

This story can be found at Shaken 007 producers put James Bond on ice

[Blowfeld]

Tomorrow Just Died for James Bond
The economy has managed to do what dozens of nefarious villains with lasers and deadly sea animals could never accomplish: Kill James Bond.

MGM announced Monday that the 23rd 007 film is nothing but a pipe dream right now, thanks to the studio's shaky financial situation.

"Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development on BOND 23 indefinitely," Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli said in a joint statement. "We do not know when development will resume and do not have a date for the release of BOND 23."

So unless another studio steps in (which is very likely, considering this is James Bond, after all) it's time to look forward to Daniel Craig as Red Rackham in The Adventures of Tin-Tin.

Read more: http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b177113_ ... z0lcU0RVWC

[katied]

Not surprising. I can honestly say that I just thought "really?" when I found out and I haven't really thought about it since.

[Mazer Rackham]

I do see how anybody can honestly be surprised by this. The writing was on the wall for over a year.

Bond 23 was stuck without financing all the pretending otherwise was foolish, the process might move faster now. Although it might be a sign of more problems to come. Especially if the producers start up work on those other 3 or 4 project they have in the background. It could be years before they are ready to get back to Bond, if ever. Their creative tank was on empty for a long time now, Danny the pouting Bourne Bond had only as much gas as the Bourne franchise gave them movies to mimic.

[oscartheman]

Obviously Bond is coming back.The only question now is will Bond be coming back with a recast Bond, new M, Moneypenny, and Q, and back to Fleming's and Cubby Broccoli's Bond script?

[Dr. No]

Feel alittle bad for craig. But I hope this means we get a new Bond soon.

[katied]

Feel alittle bad for craig. But I hope this means we get a new Bond soon.

Who knows? I mean, if there IS a long gap in between films,he may age out of the role.In which case, someone else becomes Bond.

[FormerBondFan]

Obviously Bond is coming back.The only question now is will Bond be coming back with a recast Bond, new M, Moneypenny, and Q, and back to Fleming's and Cubby Broccoli's Bond script?

I say put the franchise to a long rest before bringing in new faces.

[katied]

I say put the franchise to a long rest before bringing in new faces.

Agreed. Who knows how long the buisness with MGM is going to last...better to but Bond on hiatus for a while and to have a new cast(including a new M), as unpopular an idea as that might be.

[FormerBondFan]

I say put the franchise to a long rest before bringing in new faces.

Agreed. Who knows how long the buisness with MGM is going to last...better to but Bond on hiatus for a while and to have a new cast(including a new M), as unpopular an idea as that might be.

There are other franchises to enjoy other than Bond, and Star Trek is one of them.

[katied]

Given Holllywood's mania for rebooting and remaking movies, I don't go to the movies often.But I would watch another Star Trek movie.

[James]

I do see how anybody can honestly be surprised by this. The writing was on the wall for over a year.

Yes. Bond hasn't been this quiet since that gap between Dalton and Brosnan.

Their creative tank was on empty for a long time now, Danny the pouting Bourne Bond had only as much gas as the Bourne franchise gave them movies to mimic

I was reading AIC's thread on this news and a surprising number of people were putting the boot into DC. Someone described him as a painting with one colour or something and suggested he would become increasingly dull in the part.

[FormerBondFan]

I was reading AIC's thread on this news and a surprising number of people were putting the boot into DC. Someone described him as a painting with one colour or something and suggested he would become increasingly dull in the part.

So DC is getting some backlashes now?

[Omega]

I am not a big hater but I think he is done. That is the vibe everyone is getting right now if he comes back for a 3rd that might kill some of the excitement of new possibilities out there now. He was a one trick pony so to speak and I am looking forward to Bond movies being fun again. The old Bonds grew on me big time I miss the old Bond vibe from the last 2 movies. Maybe they would have brought that back but I doubt it.

[Blowfeld]

Putting the brakes on the James Bond franchise: Not a moment too soon?
April 20, 2010 | 11:56 am
LA Times

I guess it's hardly a surprise that James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have suspended development indefinitely on their next Bond film, known as "Bond 23," since MGM, the franchise's home studio, is in total turmoil, having so far been able to find a buyer for its library and other assets. The studio has become something of a laughingstock in Hollywood, releasing tacky B-grade movies and enduring a never-ending round of executive hirings and firings.

But I'd argue that suspending development on a new Bond film is an idea whose time has come. In fact, if I were at the Bond helm, I'd put the franchise in suspended animation for a while. If you were unlucky enough to see the last Bond entry, the unbelievably awfully titled "Quantum of Solace," you'd know that it's time to send the series back into the shop. The 2008 film cost far more than any of its predecessors, but actually made less money (in worldwide grosses) than 2006's "Casino Royale," though of course when you still make $576.3 million, it's nothing to sneeze at.

But the franchise felt tired. In fact, it looked like an aging hipster with a bad face lift, especially when you tried to imagine Bond competing with all of its younger, sleeker offspring, films like "Iron Man," "Wanted" and "The Bourne Identity" series, which all are deeply rooted in the Bond adventure hero mystique, but have updated both the tone (more irony) and technology (even more gadgets) of the story. With Hollywood in the midst of a torrid love affair with 3-D, it might be a good idea for the Bond folks to sit on the sidelines and see how the 3-D mania plays out.

If the 3-D novelty fades, then Bond could return with a renewed momentum, playing up its roots by saying that what is old is suddenly new again. And if 3-D has staying power, with virtually every big summer and holiday behemoth being made in 3-D, then the producers would have time to re-engineer the franchise to take advantage of all of 3-D's vivid visual magic. Either way, it's a good time for Bond to stay out of the fray. I don't know if Mr. Bond ever had an opportunity to utter this aphorism in any of his many films, but sometimes discretion is better than valor.

[Kristatos]

Critics have been saying it's time to end the Bond franchise for at least a quarter of a century. The moviegoing public has other ideas.

[oscartheman]

Critics have been saying it's time to end the Bond franchise for at least a quarter of a century. The moviegoing public has other ideas.

The difference is this time they have a point.Craigs run proved they were running out of ideas.None of the stories behind CR & QoS were much more than recycled action blockbusters that Bond would never touch when Cubby was in charge.The movie going public was left with impression Bond was out of ideas struggling to stay relevant.I never felt that about Bond before cold war -no cold war - sexual revolution -the rise of STDs the Bond movies had their place because the world James Bond movies represented did not contain the fears the real world had outside the theater doors.Thats where they went after Brosnan was fired, telling stories wrapped up in the fears of the outside world where Bond doesn't exist to make it safe and that was reflected in the movies Craig made where there was no Bond to be found.

[FormerBondFan]

Critics have been saying it's time to end the Bond franchise for at least a quarter of a century. The moviegoing public has other ideas.

I assume Star Trek is one of the other ideas for now.

[Blowfeld]

What next for 007?

Film fans have been left both shaken and stirred by the news that the 23rd Bond film has been delayed indefinitely. Neil Smith asks where Her Majesty's most successful movie franchise goes from here.

Over the last five decades, James Bond has seen off countless criminal masterminds, nefarious villains and evil organisations. There is one enemy even 007 cannot defeat, though: the ongoing global recession.


Bond films make a lot of money. But they also take a lot of money to make - $200m minimum - which is currently more than MGM can afford. Saddled with debts of almost $4 billion, MGM has been looking for a buyer since last year but has yet to find a white knight. With no saviour on the horizon, Eon - the company that owns the rights to Ian Fleming's character and makes the Bond movies - has opted to put the next as yet untitled instalment on indefinite hold.

The last time Eon got into a spat with MGM - just after the release of Licence to Kill in 1989 - it took six years to resolve. That was too long a hiatus for Timothy Dalton, whose decision not to return for 1995's GoldenEye allowed Pierce Brosnan to begin his highly successful four-film tenure. While everyone expects the next 007 to get made eventually, there's no telling when that will be.

By the time Bond 23 is made, Daniel Craig may have moved on.

That isn't as crazy as it sounds. Quantum of Solace may have made $586m but it got some of the worst reviews of any Bond pic to date. Not only that, but Craig was said to be unhappy working with director Marc Forster - so much so that Bond producers Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli openly courted Sam Mendes, a good friend of Craig's, in the hope he would direct the next entry in the series.

Mendes was tempted but didn't bite, leaving the project without a director and with little hope of meeting its projected 2012 release date even before the current MGM-related stalemate. Under the circumstances no one would blame Craig if he chose to move on, leaving the field open for another leading man as and when the next Bond goes back into production.


What would a Bond movie look like without Craig, though? Well, there'd be no need for it to continue down the tougher, grittier path established by 2006's Casino Royale. Chances are it would return to the lighter and more playful tone of the Brosnan years, complete with overdue comebacks for gadget whizz Q and M's loyal secretary Miss Moneypenny. The one thing that's been missing from the last two Bond pictures has been a sense of humour, something Dan's departure, while unfortunate, could easily restore. Hell, if this current suspension lasts as long as the last gap in production did, the series will be needing another reboot anyway.

Whisper it gently, but there is one more nightmare scenario - that there might not be another Bond movie at all. Whoever ends up owning MGM might not be so ready to hand $200m over to Michael and Barbara without a greater say in the finished result, something this fiercely protective duo would be extremely reluctant to facilitate. The film world has changed beyond recognition from how it was when Albert R 'Cubby' Broccoli and Harry Saltzman made Dr No in 1962 for what was then United Artists. How far, though, will their successors be prepared to alter what from their viewpoint has not just been a supremely winning formula, but also a cherished family business?

This story can be found at What next for 007?

[Dr. No]

Craig was said to be unhappy working with director Marc Forster

Then why would they ask him to come back for 23? That just doesn't make sense. Some good points and an interesting read although I am surprised to see so many comments around the web from people willing to write craig off so quickly. Guess people are more finicky than i thought.