Bond23 Officially Suspended
SeanConnery007
The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for EON Productions have officially announced that "Bond23" has now been suspended due to the uncertainty of MGM.
Full article; http://mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_23_report_aprb10c.php3?t=&s=&id=02539
Bad news - just hope they can continue production asap and that we're not looking at another LTK-GE length gap
as any great delay could jeapodise Daniel Craig returning to role.
Full article; http://mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_23_report_aprb10c.php3?t=&s=&id=02539
Bad news - just hope they can continue production asap and that we're not looking at another LTK-GE length gap
as any great delay could jeapodise Daniel Craig returning to role.
Nobody Writes Threads Better.
Comments
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is way better than no news IMO, very optimistic about this push - let's see who pushes back! :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I guess that I don't take Eon's press release for anything other than what it is: a statement informing interested parties about the delay. How long can Eon employees and contractors mill around without being told the scoop?
Look, I am an absolute primitive about certain things in the Bond world and that is 3/4 year gaps between movies is unacceptable. No ifs and or buts about it. And to Babs and Michael I offer the wise words of Al Pacino in Glengarry Glen Ross:"Your excuses are your own."
MGM has been going thru financial difficulties since Louis B. Mayer was ousted in 1956. Just ask Robert O'Brien, Kirk Kerkovian, James Aubrey, Steven Bach, Frank Yablans and every other executive who has had to deal with the lion's problems in the last 50 years.
In other words, the movie biz has always been a precarious industry.
The signal that is coming from Eon is that of indecision and cold feet.
The theory that movies are tougher top make now than in, say, 1967 is just that: a theory.
EON needs to become more like Bond: leaner and meaner.
As I said in my post "Is Eon Lazy": "indefinitely" is a word not allowed in the Bond universe.
"Q, have I ever let you down?"
"Frequently."
You don't do that with a press release, you simply call them and tell them, maybe even ask them nicely not to squawk to any gossip hounds. Seems it's a very public message to people they cannot otherwise reach easily: the MGM creditors and suitors. About the only asset MGM has right now is Bond, anyone looking to recoup anything from their long-gone-south investment is banking on Bond. No Bond, no money. EON can't force anyone to sign anything, but they can apply pressure to all interested parties to get on with it. Another Craig Bond is minimum half a billion in the bank, and who needs that money most? Not EON, they're likely the most solvent film company in history, pretty sure they've got more than well-earned laurels resting in their coffers.
Offers have been made, this is a timely little threat, er, missive.
Daniel has apparently issued a statement to say that he is still on board and confident re 23. Agree that a long delay would put that in doubt. Bond however is a money machine, comparatively cheap to make, big audince, long shelf life...known proposition. I think it may be spun off seperatley if at all possible
To be fair, after the disappointment (for me) of QOS, I'm not so bothered. It might give them time to reassess where they are going with the franchise.
I still would have hoped for a 50year celebratory Bond in 2012, and I am rather disappointed it isn't going to happen.
Maybe the BFI will reward those of us in London again with a full and complete remastered showing, some of them at the IMAX. Frankly that'd be much more fun.
Of course, I'm disappointed, but not seriously so, it reminds me of the mess UA was in around 1980/81 and MGM again in 1990. Basically, that's business for you.
You absolutely do do that with a press release. A press release is an 'official' statement for, just as it says, the 'press'. Eon can share information with stakeholders, but once that information is in the stakeholder's hands, they have no control over it. In order to prevent misinformation to the press from an unofficial stakeholder, you have to make an official statement to preempt false presumptions on behalf of the others who received the information. Otherwise everything would spin out of control - MGM is bankrupt > Eon is bankprupt > Bond is dead > Daniel Craig is dead, etc. You see how it can snowball without an official release? Eon is doing the right thing by making this announcement, IMO.
And it doesn't appear that this was some 'major' announcement forwarded out to the big news wires either, but rather a quiet release intended for the people directly involved.
Anyway, if MGM can get their act together quickly, it doesn't really matter.
They probably don't have to delay Bond 23, but probably don't want to go down a road that entangles Bond in some legal issues later. The last thing they want is some third party rearing their ugly head and claiming their entitled to some of Eon's profits because of the MGM deal they made after Bond 23 was made but before it was distributed. It cost them a pretty penny in early 90's, both in lost time and legal fees. It's all about the money!
Where's Kevin McClory when you need him?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Darenhat is right though, it is all about the money. As fans we might think we matter, that anything we say, do or think matters. But it's all about the big bucks, and they come from all the other people who go see the movies.
Die hard fans like ourselves are only a very small percentage in the profits, so they don't care if we have to wait.
I was afraid of Dalton fever a while ago (Only two movies, and then nothing for a long time), but everybody here assured me that it would not be the case now.
Sometimes I hate it when it looks like I might be right after all...
??
Of course it was a big ol' presser, when has EON ever use that outlet? It's a freaking neon sign. And I don't think your premise is correct, as EON is a separate entity and not at risk of financial ruin at all. They are also a "family business" and pride themselves on that, can't imagine they'd tell their people anything important in a press release, how cold is that?
All the Hollywood insiders today are talking about how it's a power move to force MGM's situation to a speedier conclusion. Not one whiff of EON at risk of anything, that's just daff. EON is playing poker: we're not going into production and triggering MGM involvement, until MGM's "financial uncertainties" are effectively sorted out. The alternative is to move forward with 23 bankrolled by a bankrupt studio, which I'm sure MGM's creditors would love as it holds out some hope to them of reaping some small part of 23's massive profits and recouping some of their investment losses. Pie in the sky.
Peter Jackson just said the same thing about The Hobbit, we're stopped until MGM gets sorted out. Nobody wants to tie their production to a dead horse, and MGM/it's creditors have zero leverage. This is airing dirty laundry in public (well, it's not been that private the last couple months), and you only do that for an effect. Both EON and Jackson are pushing things forward.
Not much more to say to be honest!
I remember Michael Wilson commenting publicly on how he and Barbara Broccoli wanted to take a break from Bond and how they were creatively spent and wanted to pursue other creative avenues for a while, even going so far as to pitch a couple of other properties. It was an odd attitude to take seeing as they'd rebooted the entire series to free themselves creatively.
Not surprisingly, those plans went nowhere and when Bond 23 was finally announced work proceeded at a leisurely pace and to date there has been minimal movement (most of the real "news" has been nothing but fan speculation).
Take it all together and one gets the feeling this hiatus was being planned for a while and that they've been just trying to wait MGM out. To my way of thinking, this is EON just pursuing something it's wanted for some time now and using MGM's financial woes as added leverage to help make it happen sooner rather than later. I wouldn't hold my breath for another Bond movie until and unless MGM is bought out by another studio or it divests itself of its interests in the Bond property. As to when that might happen...according to Reuters, Warner Bros. formally offered MGM $1.5 billion for the studio but were turned down as MGM would not entertain any offers below $2 billion. It remains to be seen how long they can hold out and appease their creditors with those kinds of expectations.
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
http://movies.uk.msn.com/features/action-and-adventure/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=153109087
Roger Moore 1927-2017