Breaking news — Bond 23 with Craig officially canceled

[Slacktoo]

At least according to UK's The Mirror, which is classified as a tabloid news source but still has a decent track record in accurate news. I guess we'll just have to wait for a more reputable source to confirm this. Looks like Craig will be the new Dalton!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22376238/

GOODBYE, MR BOND

By Danielle Gusmaroli, 2 July 2010

EXCLUSIVE: Debt-ridden MGM studios pull plug on film

The new James Bond film, due for release by 2012, has been canned due to a cash crisis.

Production crew were told in April the £132million blockbuster, starring Daniel Craig, had been postponed amid "financial problems" at debtridden 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."

Mgm is drowning under a reported £2.4billion of debt as it desperately searches for a buyer. A string of box office flops have meant big losses. American TV company Spyglass Entertainment is the front-runner to take over but Summit Entertainment - which makes the smash-hit Twilight vampire films starring Robert Pattinson - is also understood to be in talks with creditors.

Craig, 42, won an army of fans for his debut as Bond in Casino Royale - famously walking out of the sea in a tiny pair of white trunks.

That 2006 blockbuster took £385million at the global box office, while sequel Quantum of Solace raked in £392million - the largest takings for a 007 film ever.

But film buffs said there is little doubt Bond will be back. Mark Adams of trade mag Screen International offered some cheer to fans, saying: "The last two films did phenomenally well and the series is a very reliable performer. EON will want to keep it in the family, it's an iconic brand.

"This doesn't mean the end of the Bond films. The question is how long it will take to make another one."

Six years is the biggest gap between films. The 16th, Licence to Kill, starring Timothy Dalton, was released in 1989. GoldenEye, starring Pierce Brosnan, didn't come out until 1995.

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... z0sW25SpDw

[FormerBondFan]

Does that mean no more Bonds until 2013?

[katied]

On Babs' and Mikey's to do list: find another Bond. Seriously. Craig is going to be too old.Especially if there ends up being a 3 plus tear gap between movies.Not going to be popular with the Craig diehards...tough s***.

[Goldeneye]

From Contact Music, more than likely from the same source.

James Bond - James Bond Axed

The 23rd James Bond film has been officially axed and insiders predict it could be years before the suave spy is back on the big screen again.

The new 'James Bond' film has been officially axed.

In April, production on the 23rd movie about the suave spy - who was to be portrayed by Daniel Craig for the third time - had been postponed due to "financial problems" at movie studio MGM, but now it has been cancelled altogether.

An insider told the Daily Mirror newspaper: "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."

Sam Mendes had been lined up to direct the movie but now it could be years before 007 is back on the big screen.

Production company EON said in a statement: "We do not know when development will resume and cannot comment further at this stage."

MGM is said to be in $3.7 billion worth of debt and at the moment six years is the biggest gap between films, from 1989's 'Licence to Kill' and 'Goldeneye', which came out in 1995.

The screenplay for 'Bond 23' was worked on by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade - who had previously scripted 'Quantum of Solace' and 'Casino Royale' - and 'Frost/Nixon' writer Peter Morgan.

[Captain Nash]

Even though it's nothing we don't already know, I will say this.
It's from the British tabloid newspaper 'The Mirror'
Taken with a pinch of salt, and as I said, giving us nothing we don't already know. Must be a slow news day in the UK.
As for Craig not returning, well maybe he wont come back for Bond 23. Afterall, he's not going to play Bond forever. My only concern would be who would be cast, and what effect it might have on the continuation of the series to have a rather quick succession of actors in the role. Two films under the belt is not enough. Four would be ideal methinks. But three should be a minimum. Or else Bond falls into a dangerous area of having to refresh himself every two films, get tired, and run out of ideas. It's all very well replacing Craig, but look at the potential ramifications in doing so.

[Blowfeld]

I'm trying to understand this. Did the Mirror re-purpose the April news? In the last few days could Eon have told the crew holding on to go ahead accept other employment because the 2012 shooting is not happening?

[Kristatos]

Even though it's nothing we don't already know, I will say this.
It's from the British tabloid newspaper 'The Mirror'
Taken with a pinch of salt, and as I said, giving us nothing we don't already know. Must be a slow news day in the UK.
As for Craig not returning, well maybe he wont come back for Bond 23. Afterall, he's not going to play Bond forever. My only concern would be who would be cast, and what effect it might have on the continuation of the series to have a rather quick succession of actors in the role. Two films under the belt is not enough. Four would be ideal methinks. But three should be a minimum. Or else Bond falls into a dangerous area of having to refresh himself every two films, get tired, and run out of ideas. It's all very well replacing Craig, but look at the potential ramifications in doing so.

Yes, I want to hear it from a more reputable source before I believe it. But the last time a Bond actor left after two films followed by a long gap, the series came back with Goldeneye, the most successful Bond film in 15 years. So I don't have much fear on that score. OK, you may not like Brosnan (and I'm a Dalton fan myself), but it's undeniable that he revitalised the franchise from a purely box office point of view.

[Slacktoo]

Even though it's nothing we don't already know, I will say this.
It's from the British tabloid newspaper 'The Mirror'
Taken with a pinch of salt, and as I said, giving us nothing we don't already know. Must be a slow news day in the UK.
As for Craig not returning, well maybe he wont come back for Bond 23. Afterall, he's not going to play Bond forever. My only concern would be who would be cast, and what effect it might have on the continuation of the series to have a rather quick succession of actors in the role. Two films under the belt is not enough. Four would be ideal methinks. But three should be a minimum. Or else Bond falls into a dangerous area of having to refresh himself every two films, get tired, and run out of ideas. It's all very well replacing Craig, but look at the potential ramifications in doing so.

Yes, I want to hear it from a more reputable source before I believe it. But the last time a Bond actor left after two films followed by a long gap, the series came back with Goldeneye, the most successful Bond film in 15 years. So I don't have much fear on that score. OK, you may not like Brosnan (and I'm a Dalton fan myself), but it's undeniable that he revitalised the franchise from a purely box office point of view.

What excites me is that when Pierce came along after the 6-year gap, there was a new Moneypenny, new M, new feel, new everything. I'm hoping that if we have to endure another long gap we'll be gifted with some fresh new actors all around, and hopefully Q and Moneypenny will return as well. It's been too long since the traditional M office scene.

[Blowfeld]

Looks like the rumour is that it was postponed in April and now they are cancelling it out right. I don't see the difference. Nothing was happening either way.

[Mazer Rackham]

"£132million blockbuster"
That's rich!

Still they broke the news so I suppose they can spin it the way they want. At that price tag it wasn't going to happen, not at MGM. 200m + another 130m promotion to maybe get a decent selling DVD. Which will be dying out right around 2012, Blu-ray might help some so far it hasn't. There was something not long ago about them wanting more for Bond 23, closer to the 240m they claim Quark cost. Supposedly when MGM troubles started Babs and Mikey dropped their graft down some.

I don't know, I still doubt some of this. If this is true then they know WB isn't going to be buddying up to them and suspect there will be a fight over proceeds again as there was in the early 1990s.

Funny how it is common knowledge the six year gap brought us the Brozza, nobody seems to catch it was only a four year hiatus that brought us Barbara's aging boy toy Craig. If Craig didn't know he was done before he knows it now. If all this is accurate a 2013 film with Craig will not make sense. Unless he hits it big. Not going to happen. He will be lucky if he finds steady work.

[Goldeneye]

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/20 ... -dead.html

Is The Next James Bond Movie Dead?
Colin Boyd Get the Big Picture 07/02/10 02:19 PM
Is The Next James Bond Movie Dead?
Bond 23, which is the only thing we know to call the next 007 movie, was officially delayed by EON Productions back in April. Now it could be moving back on the shelf indefinitely. According to The Daily Mirror (via Contact Music), an announcement is expected soon that will shed more light on the subject, but it won't be good news.
According to the article - which, being from The Daily Mirror, requires a bit of skepticism - senior members of the production crew will be told rather shortly that the film is on ice with no timetable to return. This would be particularly bad news if it means Daniel Craig will have ammunition to get out of his contract, and anything longer than a two-year wait might hurt the franchise's chances of getting him back. EON was contacted about the story, and through a spokesman, offered meekly, "We issued a statement in April saying filming had been postponed. We do not know when development will resume and cannot comment further at this stage."

[Dr. No]

On the piratical side of things this is a good time for a break. Everyone seems to agree they are out of ideas rather than crank out another so so movie stop take the time to make a good movie and a few more after it. I feel kind of bad for Craig but what goes around comes around he'll be fine with out squinting at the camera adjusting his tie trying to look posh.

[katied]

They are definitely out of ideas..better for them to have some time to regroup,IMO.

[bjmdds]

I want MP selecting the 7th 007. Who is it MP?

[katied]

I'm gonna have to go with Damian Lewis. They'd have to dye his hair(as I've said before, there would be a stink over Bond being ginger ). I have a soft spot for gingers(I have a ginger haired nephew),but Damian(IMO) has the Bond look.


Reserve would be Jeremy Northam(loved him in CBS' Miami Medical which got cancelled. Darn you, CBS!).Problem is, is he might be too old for some people and I think he was asked before, too. He's not that old(he's 48,will be 49 the first of December). He doesn't look it,particularly, whereas Daniel Craig...

[Dr. No]

He is ok I'd say its time for young man. Pierce was 33 or 34 when he first was offered the role and 42 when he got it. In retrospect he was a little young in the 80s but I thought he grew in to the role well by the time he made GE but he looked young (still does at 50), which at 38 Craig did not. I'd say find a young man who look the part and make 7 movies with him. Although I think if pierce had taken over in 1987 he would have been great.


How old they were when they got bond
(Connery was 32 -looked older in later movies -DAF on
(Lazeny was 30 --looked older but not in a bad way
(Moore was 46 -looked a good 46 but didnt' age as well as Dalton or Brosnan
(Dalton was 43 -looked very young
(Brosnan was 42 -looked younger
(Craig was 38 -looked in his late fortys

I say find a Brosnan type actor appropriate for the role and get them at young age, kept them happy and working on good movies and we'll get 6 or 7 movies before they hit 50.

[Captain Nash]

Not to put a spoiler on it, but Daniel Craig hasn't vacated the role yet.

[katied]

It may well be a short hiatus. But on the off chance that it becomes a several year thing, I think Craig fans should be prepared for him to be replaced.Simple as that.

[007]

There must be a point where it would make more sense to reboot again with a new actor than let DC return 4+ years after he last played the role. They always get a short term boost & flurry of interest from recasting with the curiosity factor.

[Captain Nash]

There was a three year hiatus between TWINE and DAD, and no-one had a problem with it.
I see no reason why the same can't be between QOS and Bond 23?
Other than this sites dislike of Craig.