
Reading these obits on James Bond, I think reports of 007′s motion picture demise because of MGM’s near-bankruptcy have been greatly exaggerated. Despite an article out of the UK that spread virally, insiders insist nothing tangible has happened. While Sony, Fox, and Warner Bros would love to grab the Eon Productions franchise, I’m told reliably that as long as MGM’s debt restructuring is preceded by a pre-packaged bankruptcy, Bond isn’t going anywhere. [UPDATE: “You are absolutely right, there is no new news. Development will resume once MGM is viable again, as Danjaq can't go anywhere without them. So all bets are off. No idea when this will get resolved,” a source integral to the Bond franchise told Deadline London editor Tim Adler today. Eon is a subsidiary of Danjaq, the Broccoli family holding company responsible for the copyright and trademarks to everything James Bond on screen.] While the studio’s beleaguered backers unwisely allowed MGM and its library to languish by not making new movies and benching MGM’s creative and marketing/distribution executives while it staged a futile sales auction that attracted bottom-fishing bids, MGM has made sure to meets the minimum obligations to its two gems, James Bond and The Hobbit. The studio is mulling whether to change its lethargic strategy and free up money for back-to-back Hobbit films to keep the first film on track for a December 2012 release. That’s because Peter Jackson is willing to direct the films but might not if those release dates get pushed. There is no such ticking clock on 007.
As Deadline has reported, director Sam Mendes responded to the Bond delay by setting a feature adaptation of the Ian McEwan novel On Chesil Beach (he hopes Carey Mulligan will star) and directing the Broadway-bound musical adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Daniel Craig is taking other jobs, too. He’s starring in Cowboys & Aliens and negotiating to star in the David Fincher-directed The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I’m told both talents fully plan to come back to James Bond after MGM sorts itself out. That game plan — Spyglass and Summit are believed to be the front runners to steer the studio — should be in place by the early fall, I’m told. If Spyglass wins the day and the studio sheds its distribution/marketing unit, Bond will have several studios chasing it, and the winner will likely make a deal that includes servicing the MGM library, a labor intensive enterprise.


I’m kinda hoping to see Mendes drop out as a positive consequence of the delay; the chamber-piece sensibility of an ‘acclaimed theater director’ is the last thing a Bond movie needs, even though the second unit shoulders the lion’s share of the important screen time.
That’s good news, both of Craig’s Bonds were great. Can’t wait to see what Mendes will do with Bond.
It would be nice if Bond spoke in this one.
Steve, have you not seen ROAD TO PERDITION? Mendes is a spectacularly exciting choice for BOND.
ROAD TO PERDITION was a perfectly adequate 90 minute pulp thriller- with most of the life sucked out of the material by trying to turn it into a 120 minute “serious drama”. (The Japanese original- LONE WOLF AND CUB- is better as both thriller AND drama, mostly because it ISN’T looking down on it’s comic-book origins).
I hope this gives them time to come up with a great script that is more Casino Royale than the confusing and not as much fun — quantum. But come on, we need a BOND soon!
Great news. Couldn’t think of a more cohesive team. You got Peter Morgan writing the script. Mendes directing. And of course the best Bond ever — Craig. Yeah, yeah, yeah I know Connery is a beloved favorite, but you know what, if given the choice to watch From Russia With Love or Casino Royale, I’d go with the latter in a heartbeat.
thats just asinine. the craig movies have been mediocre at best. the old bond movies, especially the connery ones, are nothing short of classics
thats just asinine. the craig movies have been great at best. some of the old bond movies are nothing short of classics, while most are simply cheap fun.
thats just asinine. the craig movies are mediocre at best, whereas the older bond movies, especially all the connery ones, are classics. craig might not be the worst bond, but hes close
@ed & Anonymous
Both of you guys are truly misguided let alone wrong. Saying “Casino Royale” is mediocre at best? Shows what you know about solid storytelling let alone filmmaking (not much, if any). “Casino Royale” has been defined as one of, if not the best Bond film ever. Daniel Craig technically fits the Bond role that Flemming envisioned more so then any other actor in past that has played it even though Pierce Bronsan probably had the best look for it but only had one solid film in his term which was “GoldenEye” & no disrespect on Sean Connery but let’s be honest, his Bond films where pure cheese & Connery is really the reason why they were good & some where great & hey, he even had his duds too. The Bond franchise needed to be more gritty & darker because the cheese tactics where getting old let alone in Craig’s Bond films Bond actually gets hurt & he’s not some kind of Superman.
you’re crazy, Goldeneye is one of the best Bond films ever.
Every Sam Mendes movie since “American Beauty” has been a snooze.
Couldn’t agree with you more! American Beauty is singularly the most over-rated movie ever made!
One of the few franchises that could potentially bring back a studio from bankruptcy.
Screenwriters are always complaining that they never got time to finesse the script. Well, this would count as extra credit points toward that. Sure, it’s not on anyone’s dime, but no self-respecting screenwriter has only one iron in the fire at any given time. Sell the Harry Potter rip-off to Fox (they love those kinds of things) and get on with making this script as dairy-free as possible. Thank you.
I have a feeling we’ve still seen the last of Craig as Bond.
Yes, I would assume both he and Mendes do remain open to returning. After all, it’s only been three months since the delay was announced and each gave an official statement to the press. However, this situation probably isn’t going to be resolved as smoothly as fans would prefer.
The chance of Bond 23 making theaters by 2012 grows slimmer every day, with 2013 now appearing much more likely. Yet Bond is an extremely time-sensitive franchise, where any delay greater than two years has always led to a course adjustment. So even if they get past the current legal hurdles, Craig may find he no longer shares EON’s vision for what the series should be about.
The MGM creditors sound about as intelligent as MGM management – do a deal before there is nothing left
For me CR was a bore and Craig is a dud hes not Bond hes short, not handsome and has no charm and what was this nonsense in the last film his not getting the girl?
Everyone crying about how long it might take for the next film, well you had no problems with the FOUR year wait between DAD & CR while EON was mucking with our minds when they knew they wanted DC all along.
If “Casino Royale” is a bore to you then you must NOT have the comprehension to enjoy solid storytelling. Go watch your “Twilight” films. Also, Craig ISN’T a dud. How is Craig short? He’s 5’10″ which is the average height ratio for most men. What do you want some 6’5″ goon or something? Get over it let alone the typecasting delusion of what Bond has been potrayed as in the past.
Hey Pal I’m 5′ 10″ to 11″ not Craig no way, I saw a tape of when he and Hugh Jackman were doing a play here in NYC DC didn’t even come up to Hugh’s shoulder. No I don’t want a 6ft 5in goon is that what you’re calling Roger or Sean? Its not a typecasting delusion Fleming said Bond was SIX FT with dark hair.
Anyway they always say an actor is taller then his real height.
One story I read about Al Pacino and Robert De Niro had them listed at 5′ 6″ and 5′ 10″ no way is either one of them that tall
OH BTW much as I like vampire films I don’t watch the “Twilight” series which is more for teens in the first place and besides what does that have to do with Bond?
Alrighty I’ll go public on something I’ve been muttering for years…
The next James Bond film, should star Daniel Radcliffe,
Sounds off but think about it for a minute,
Not so daft is it.
jb
Haha, you’re insane.
We need a Bond who can act natural and who is allowed to smile, otherwise why not just make another Bourne Identity? Let’s fun-up the franchise again. Let’s have someone tall, dark and handsome play the part with real emotion, including the humor that must be there. A Commonwealth Clooney who kicks ass and can’t believe his luck with the ladies. Hugh Jackman?
you had no problems with the FOUR year wait between DAD & CR
Yes, it’s funny how everyone used the delay back in 2005 as a way to argue that it was time for a change. We’re already looking at a similar four year break in between films, yet now fans are acting like it’s too soon to change.
Of course, the other argument was that- despite being huge at the box office- Die Another Day had been a disappointment. Yet we can level the exact same claim towards Quantum of Solace- a film which actually drew worse reviews upon release!
Personally, I hope the franchise does continue to take a rest. EON had every advantage going into Quantum and they still managed to turn in one of the series worst installments.
They need to go back to the drawing board and come back with a bang- not another dull, cheap imitation of Jason Bourne that takes itself far too seriously.
Craig might be a nice guy but he’s the ugliest Bond ever. I stop watching it. James Bond is not A guy next door. Come on. Bring the sexy back not the potato head. We want Handsome!
Exactly, that’s what I said, even during the “DC sexiest man” PR blitzkrieg way back before CR. Ridick! Craig can’t sell classy sexy playboy spy. CR was a great story and deserved to be seen b/c of that. As to Bond not getting the girl – that was clearly preferable….
Try Clive Owen, he can play anything (watch BENT!) and would be my first choice. Or new and way improved Colin Farrell.
And get rid of that other ugly bit** Dench. Hallo, ‘M’ was a man and Bond was brunette, not blonde. Each movie strays further from Fleming’s vision.
What is with some of you people & looks? Looks don’t make the film. What do you want to play “M” some kind of eye-candy whore? Just STFU! Seriously, you are wrong about each film strays further away from Fleming’s vision as “Casino Royale” was the closets to Fleming’s vision more then any other James Bond film.
I’m with you. Some dingbats choose movies because of the looks of the stars – too funny. If they don’t like it they should stay home with their cats and watch reruns of George Clooney (who’s shorter than Craig by the way) movies. Bond is about a good story, a bad guy, and stunts. It ain’t rocket science.
Daniel Craig could make a 90-minute urinating sequence interesting because he’s that good! He’s been great in everything he’s acted in.
Well, if you guys must recast Bond, give me Matthew Goode, please & thank you.
If not, fine. I like Craig. Not gorgeous. Just sexy.
Sony!!! Where Is Sony?
Mendes is a bad fit. Ideal, out-of-the-box choice: Kathryn Bigelow. Good with actors? Check. Story? Check. Prestige? Now that she has an Oscar, check. Action and suspense? Double-check. Plus the x-factor of her being a woman doing Bond, perhaps interesting possibilities there. Way better choice than Mendes. Bond films need superior craftsmanship of the old-school, Terence Young style, not pretentious, wannabe-artists. See Marc Forster if you don’t believe me.
I disagree about Marc Forster. He is an outstanding director that took on a great risk making a Bond picture. I’ll bet anything you disliked about Quantum of Solace is due to producer and executive producer tinkering — not the director.
I agree with you that Kathryn Bigelow would be a wonderful choice for a Bond movie director.
also don’t forget Michael Apted from the dreary World is not Enough.art house directors can be a bad choice.
MGM venda os direito do 007 para a warner bros…
I don’t understand what the deal is with some people…Daniel Craig has made a great James Bond so far (just as good as Connery did). The majority of the world agrees with that too, but I guess there are always going to be haters out there for everything. Sam Mendes to direct? Freakin’ awesome! He is one very talented director and I think he would do wonders with a 007 adaption.
If Sam Mended and Daniel Craig were to be replaced (which I pray to god they are not, especially Craig) I think Clive Owen would be a good choice for Bond. For the replacement director, I would absolutely LOVE to see Christopher Nolan direct a James Bond film seeing how he has expressed interest in doing so before. He will be tied up making Batman 3 through 2011 till July of 2012 so if MGM holds off until after that…sign Christopher Nolan on to the job!
I think Daniel Craig is byfar THEE BEST actor to play James Bond since Sean Connery, hands down! Without question. I mean, he nailed it! Grace, vigor, charm, humor…EVERYTHING!! HE NAILED IT!! POINT BLANK!! The Craig Bond’s are the “backstory” Bond films, so let’s hope Bond 23 goes back to the “story and character” of 007…action yes…a gadget or two yes, but pleeeeeeeeease…DO NOT lose the “STORY” AND “CHARACTER” OF BOND, and create a villian that’s not a stupid over-the-top- meglamaniacal cartoon, but one that is “REAL”, hence LeChiffe. Let the show commence!
Daniel Craig is a good actor, perhaps not for bond. I liked him in Casino Royale but, I just don’t think he can carry the franchise. Quantum was a bad film – beautifully directed action sequences and adequate direction, but the problem was the writing. It was horribly written. Sam Mendes is more than capable, but it’s all about the script. I care more about whose writing the story…the script is everything, you cannot make a good film with a bad screenplay, period.
Crage is my Fav Bond. And I love this character-get this movie made!!!