EXCLUSIVE: Deadline has just learned that Javier Bardem has been offered a starring role in the upcoming James Bond film recently set for a November 9, 2012, release. Details about the character are being kept under wraps for now. But traditionally the biggest male role opposite 007 is the villain, and Bardem played a truly villainous villain in his Oscar-winning turn in No Country For Old Men two years ago. The EON Productions offer by principals Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli to Bardem to join star Daniel Craig and director Sam Mendes was made last week, at around the same time that the WME-repped Bardem received his Best Actor nomination for Biutiful and another high-profile offer of a lead role, that of gunslinger Roland Deschain in the Ron Howard-directed trilogy based on Stephen King’s novel series The Dark Tower. (Amidst all this career activity, Bardem and Penelope Cruz welcomed their first son into the world.) But it should be noted that Bardem was offered the high-profile villain role in Oliver Stone’s Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and turned it down.
The other Bond #23 news is this: Deadline has learned that MGM’s new leadership is trying to leverage the next Bond pic, and indeed the Bond franchise, to create more cash flow for the post-bankruptcy studio. The new brass, Spyglass Entertainment co-owners Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum who are now the Co-Chairmen/CEOs of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc, are in the middle of negotiating to make an overall deal for worldwide theatrical and home entertainment distribution of not just Bond but also MGM’s new product as well as its library of films. But what isn’t known is that, as part of that deal, MGM wants whichever studio is chosen to distribute Bond 23 to co-finance a number of films with MGM. ”That would provide MGM quick cash flow,” an insider tells Deadline. “The quick cash flow allows MGM to have revenue which it hasn’t had in a long time. Thereby their books look better, and therefore the possibility of getting more funds for production is increased. So expect whichever studio lands Bond to also announce it is several co-financing deals allowing MGM into other pics that are already shooting.”
There’s no doubt this is a shrewd move by MGM, but Deadline has learned it’s not sitting well with the majors. Top execs at Sony and Fox and Paramount and Warner Bros who are all involved in the negotiations to distribute Bond ”are growing increasingly frustrated with the way that the Spyglass duo are playing one studio off another — and enjoying it,” in the words of one exec involved. One studio even described its strategy to win Bond #23 was reduced recently to ”pleading”.
Back on September 8th, Deadline first reported that Paramount and Fox and other studios already were jockeying to distribute Bond #23. (The Hollywood Reporter recently claimed this as exclusive news a full five months later!) Here’s what Deadline’s Mike Fleming wrote back then: “Warner Bros, Sony Pictures Entertainment and 20th Century Fox are the obvious outlets, but don’t count out Paramount. That studio has been co-financing partners with Spyglass on Star Trek and the upcoming sequel. That has grown into a strong relationship. I’m told that Paramount is making an aggressive push to win that franchise, much the way that it captured the Marvel Entertainment deal before that enterprise was sold to Disney. Obviously, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson hold a lot of say in where the films go, but it will be a hotly contested property… Deadline was first to report the distribution outsourcing plan by the Spyglass duo, on June 29th.”
Broccoli and Wilson had been in pre-production on Bond #23 for release in 2011 but then it took almost a year for MGM’s future to sort itself out what with the failed auction sale of the studio, then the pre-packaged bankruptcy getting approval, and eventually Spyglass taking over studio filmmaking. Daniel Craig will be returning as the legendary British secret agent, with Sam Mendes directing a screenplay written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan. That script is being kept under wraps but the story begins after Quantum Of Solace leaves off.


I hope that they set this film in the the U.S. and that they include several famous American actors.
When America produces decent actors under 50, they’ll be used.
There are many good to great american actors under 50, so I must assume you are trying to be funny.
America/Americans should never appear in a Bond film… the results are almost always bad (exception for Goldfinger). Diamonds Are Forever, anyone? Live and Let Die?
Bardem is a wonderful actor, but the script for Quantum of Solace was dreadful. Let’s hope that they have a better story this time around (and that they don’t waste such an amazing actor–well, if he takes the part).
If Bond history is any judge, Bond 23 will be a good one. It seems that every other Bond film is good. So if Solace wasn’t, then 23 must.
Jinlee, the Quantum of Solace script was actually pretty bad ass, but they somehow fucked it up with bad casting (*cough* Olga Kurylenko *cough*) and, let’s be honest, a bad director.
Props to Bardem! Amazing actor and a class act. BADASS!
Quantum of Solace was a victim of the writers’ strike. Haggis turned in a draft, writers went on strike, script wasn’t ready but they had a date to make, so it went ahead, with Forster cobbling things together as best he could. People always complain the Bond movies have no plot or story, but the movies are in fact incredibly heavy on plot- that’s what Solace was missing– any level of story complexity. But it had the best opening gambit of any Bond movie, and the action bit that follows in Sienna is among the series’ best as well.
Your analysis doesn’t explain Forster’s horrible editing choices. Those two sequences would have been a lot better if classically edited a la Casino Royale.
Absolutely, 100% right.
Forster’s artsy-fartsy editing of the Dan Bradley directed brilliant action scenes were horrible.
Forster was a wrong choice. Bond 22 was clearly a merc job for this Sony director.
AND WHAT DIFFERENT from the Forster non action directing/Bourne clone hyper attention deficit disorder editing/wrong camera placement film making is anyone expecting from Mendes??? This Mendes Bond will drop like an egg from a tall chicken.
Jackburton: Read the post from Jon and then nod your head in vigorous agreement, because he is correct. QUANTUM opening was atrocious (like the rest of the movie) for a number of reasons, not the least of which was THE EDITING!!!
The great Stuart Baird edited CASINO ROYALE in a classical manner that worked perfectly for the film. QUANTUM, on the other hand, was edited to reflect the “game changing” (gag me!) editing rhythms of the BOURNE franchise and its ilk and we are all the poorer for it.
I exhibit NO surprise at this quote: “Top execs at Sony and Fox and Paramount and Warner Bros who are all involved in the negotiations to distribute Bond “are growing increasingly frustrated with the way that the Spyglass duo are playing one studio off another — and enjoying it”
The Lion would have done better had Kirk come out of the woodwork for another go at it.
Where’s Universal in this?
Universal very well may be playing it smart and staying clear of the train wreck.
And you clearly work for Universal. Great 2009 and 2010, buddy!
So they are playing it smart because getting in on Bond will surely get Universal a bad 2011 or 2012 depending on when the next Bond gets release.
Stop. Back up. Read the article. Read the first comment. Think about the context and see if you can figure out what’s being said here.
Is Bond the train wreck in question?
“Where’s Universal in this?”
They are only talking to the BIG studios.
That’s right! I SAID IT!
Haha! That was genuinely funny.
Go gray and roger! Of course the majors are whining because these guys are superb dealmakers and will be getting the best terms possible…for a bond and a bunch of co-fi’s! Who wouldn’t want that in today’s market? The lion ain’t dead yet!
I want my Superman American and my Bond villains Eastern European!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Touche.
Bond villains can only be Eastern Europeans??? What’s with the obsession with commie Russians? Villains can be from any part of the world I think…
This sounds promising. Just looking at the photos of the two of them opposite each other at the top of the story teases what could be a great hero/villain combination.
Why is Sony being cagey about co-productions now? They’ve co-financed MGM’s “The Zookeeper” and Paramount’s “The Adventures of Tintin”… so, why not with MGM again to get Bond back? It just boggles the mind… passing up several meal tickets IMO.
As I recall, Quantum of Solace was the first Bond film in the series to serve as a direct sequel to the preceding film -not just in the storyline, but literally picking up exactly where the last one ended.
While I actually enjoyed the film, it’s biggest fault was that it was handcuffed to the previous film story-wise, and thus was unable to exhibit any personality of its own as a Bond film. It was like the second half of a very expensive two-part sweeps episode.
So it is now doubly disappointing to hear that they have not learned their lesson and Bond 23 is going to pick up where Quantum left off. This was a mistake the first time and will now be compounded.
Furthermore, after not doing this for the first 21 Bonds, why are they doing it now, and twice in a row? I’m pretty sure those first 21 movies did pretty well.
I wholeheartedly agree! It used to be that Bond films were stand-alone stories that had an epic feel to them. And this was true whether the film was really good (i.e. the brilliant “From Russia With Love”) or really bad (i.e. the self-parodying-itself-to-death “Moonraker”).
“Quantum of Solace” felt like nothing more than an elaborate addendum to “Casino Royale”. It was shockingly underwhelming…which is saying something for a movie that was reportedly the most expensive movie-per-minute-of-running-time every made.
True, true, although the epic ending of Casino Royale kind of demanded a direct sequel. Bond having already moved on from the betrayal of Vesper when Quantum of Solace opens would have been dissatisfying, I think.
I do feel that Bond 23 should not be a direct sequel.
I love when laymans talk Bond.
Since when was From Russia With Love a true stand alone story? It was a part of the whole S.P.E.C.T.R.E. arc which started with Dr. No and almost ended with Diamond are Forever.
I think it is brilliant that the DC Bond series has an arc too. We had stand alone episodes for Bond for more than 30 years!!!
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was only tenuously connected to the Bond films that preceded and followed it and you know it, so cut the crap.
QUANTUM’s story, on the other hand, was a DIRECT CONTINUATION of the narrative that came before (much like THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was a direct continuation of STAR WARS, from 1977).
Eon’s goal seems to be an epic, James Bond trilogy a la the BOURNE franchise and I think they are silly for even trying. The Bond films should be standalone.
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was set 3 years after STAR WARS. So cut the crap.
The name is Bourne, James Bourne.
Broccoli kiddies have no faith in Fleming, Saltzman and daddy’s creation. Begin with the blond troll– ape Bourne right down to the hyper editing and the grunge clothing– no humor or Moneypenny or Q. or a clever gizmo– Dench’s annoying one note harpy M.– and an overall lack of verve and we have the next installment led by another “sensitive” director who could not film his way out of a paper bag complete with scissors, and the death knell for the francise. Forster drove it to the cliff— Mendes will shove it over the side as the fans turn off once and for all.
I think Quantum of Solace was the sequel we had to have. They put so much effort into developing Bond as a three-dimensional character in Casino Royale that we needed the sequel for him to sort out his feelings and the repercussions of Vesper’s death.
I’m actually really happy they’re going to follow on with a third serialised film, because I’d like to see Bond track down the Quantum organisation and finish up that plot thread.
I definitely agree.
“Quantum of Solace was the first Bond film in the series to serve as a direct sequel to the preceding film…”
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER begins with Bond out to avenge the murder of (spoiler redacted) in ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE.
Good point, although it is unclear how soon after OHMSS that Diamonds Are Forever occurs. Quantum clearly starts shortly after Casino Royale. Plus, because people didn’t accept Lazenby, that plot point is lost on many viewers.
The Bond films always seem to botch their revenge plots: Diamonds Are Forever, Licence to Kill, Quantum of Solace.
I agree with this. He was not exactly “scary” in this movie. A bit weird, sure. Tense? At times. But he was no “wicked queen”, to be sure.
Thank you for the side-by-side photos.
Yum. Yummy, yum yum, Yum.
I agree. Roger and Gary are a very sexy duo.
They make good movies, too, ladies
…and what do these two hot, hot, HOT stars have in common? They’re both MEN. Wrinkles, crows feet, straightforward hairstyles. Are you listening, studios? BTW, am I the only one who thinks it’s a bit odd that Bond has never been to Australia? Russell Crowe for the villain! Let’s face it, he could use a hit.
Haha. Yeah because there’s a huge shortage of English language films set in the US and Europe and The Rest Of The World are so boring abc have nothing to offer.
The editing in “Quantum of Solace” looked confusing in the theater, but when I saw it on cable it worked better… The film wasn’t bad at all. People hate it, but it moved a hell of a lot better than “Casino Royale”…
The story was terrible. A water coup in Bolivia? Gee, could the stakes be less interesting?
Bond not sleeping with the lead woman, while a change of pace, was also a misstep. They could at least have had angry sex.
The days of Bond saving the world from the clutches of an evil megalomaniac are pretty much over, unfortunately. The perception (real or imagined) seems to be that the 007 series should follow the pattern set by the BOURNE franchise and confine itself to gritty storylines and quote-unquote “real” villains.
Gag me.
Hollywood IS changing .. first casting Henry as Superman now Javier.. it looks like they are really ready to do “business” again..
au revoir Brangelina:)
Javier is set to play a Villain NOT James Bond ya Dummie learn to read.
How about Justin Beiber as the villain!!! OR, perhaps, to warble the next nails on the chalkboard beyond obnoxious title non song???
Hoping that Javier takes up this Bond offer instead of the lead in The Dark Tower.
Viggo Mortensen and Christian Bale are incredible choices that have a much better overall acting resume for TDT. Both were in true period westerns that were all awesome. Plus Viggo has The Lord of the Rings experience and Bale has Batman experience; Both are quintessential genre roles for approaching a project as sprawling as TDT.
Javier is an incredible actor but he hasn’t played an epic role in the fanboy realm.
Roland looks like Viggo in my imagination.
Barber and Birnbaum acting like assholes? Who wouldn’t have expected that? The two must be fully aware that Spyglass’ standalone (read: non-financing-only, a la STAR TREK) product, by and large, has consistently tanked over the hears — NO STRINGS ATTACHED being a notable exception — and that this is their last shot at not being labeled has-beens. Pissing off the studios who, once they fritter away what’s left of MGM, will be distributing future Spyglass product, is probably not their best option.
It’ll be interesting if and when these two DB’s start trying to penny-pinch and push around Wilson and Broccoli. LOL. Talk about in for a rude awakening.
The poor studios are frustrated. Please, these greedy A-holes have screwed more people over then anyone in this town. They should enjoy the just desserts.
I agree that it’s a mistake to try and make another direct sequel. Quantum was such a disappointment, it’s hard to imagine audiences still caring about the film’s storyline four years later.
Case in point: It had only been two years since the much lauded Casino Royale, yet critics and audience alike both complained that Quantum’s plot relied too heavily on prior plot points most had forgotten. Call it the price of longevity, but few seem to care about the latest Bond sequel after they’ve left the theater.
I agree about Bond being better set outside the US. Worst of all was “A View To A Kill” in San Francisco.
Bond’s pretty bad when they go to Asia too. Set it in Europe!
Hopefully, Bardem will get to play an evil, campy version of Almodovar as Bond supervillain.
And worst Bond girl: Denise Richards.
Bond and his girls/villians should be mostly European. That is the charm of the series: discovering FINE European actors like Madd Mikkelsen or Matthieu Amalric etc.
Disagree: The undisputed best of the Bond films, GOLDFINGER, took place mostly in Kentucky of all places, and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (an incredibly fun movie) was largely set in Vegas.
Really Classic Liberal just shut up.
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER are considered to be one of the worst Bond movie.
I beg all involved PLEASE MAKE the SCRIPT MORE CASINO ROYALE THAN THE DULL AND CONFUSING QUANTUM…..
I think it’s about time that MGM leveraged the sole reason it can still exist as a standalone studio and not just as a film library. This is exactly how it needs to be played if anyone here ever cares about seeing the MGM name live on. It’s a business deal; if the studios didn’t stand to gain something by coming to the table, they wouldn’t be there.
Fair play to Birnbaum and Barber for playing the only hand they have, MGM has been folding for far too long now.
My view on this whole thing? Meh.
Warners don’t really intend to take Bond, they just want to show Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli that they are still in the chase for MGM when it comes back on the market again in a few years. And it will be back on the market sooner rather than later.
Warners already have Zack Snyder’s Superman and the first part of The Hobbit lined up for fall 2012.
Sony only want Bond 23 if they can self finance the film and complete their ‘trilogy’ of Bond films. But they do have more money than sense so perhaps.
Fox want the library to distribute on DVD etc but not MGM’s slate.
Paramount would seem like the best option but they can barely kick up enough scratch for their own slate never mind co-financing whatever warmed over, stale garbage MGM says it has ‘ready for production’.
My guess? They should go with Sony. They will probably go with Paramount.
Although Quantum… was disappointing overall, the opening was incredibly good.
EON would be smart to offer Bond 23 to Martin Campbell.
He probably would not take the offer, but he is the best Bond director. He truly understands the character and how to frame great action around Bond.
At the end of the day who distributes the film is far less important than who directs it.
You do know that Sam Mendes is already set to Direct, don’t you?