Bond 23 delayed even further? (Page 1 of 2)

Here,here. I agree.The press, I **** em !!

To be fair, this wasn't a "news story"... standard movie gossip I thought. Having said that, I have my doubts about Eons abiltity to pull  Bond23 out of the bag by Nov '11, esp as any MGM takeover could be a protracted affair and may not even start until the new financial year, when profits/loss acccounts will be up to date.

With that in mind MGW & BB are merely playing safe by putting Bond23 on the back- burner for a few months. Bond will be back I am sure.

Personal bet? They will wait until 2012. I've said it before, but it is the 50th anniversary year and I can see Eon thinking "what can we do to mark 50 years of the 007 franchise?"

Let's all watch the space!

This is what I read today, which led me to check for info here at AJB.  The bottom line seems to be the financing.  If EON was ponying up for production costs and all they were looking to MGM for was distribution, then that wouldn't be a big deal.  As it is, the few productions MGM does have on it's slate won't be able to move forward until a sale is completed.  After that it's a scheduling issue.  What else does Craig have on his plate?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/01/04/jam … t-on-hold/

Well, from MGM's point of view, unless they are planning a fire sale and completely (and for good) shuttering their historic studio, then they really need to keep Bond going.  Of course they need a stronger slate of films besides Bond, too.  I can't help but to think that the Sam Mendes rumor has more to do with the Studio courting potential suitors and/or re-assuring those that they owe.  Having a a tent pole project underway (with a built-in audience) certainly looks better than having nothing ready to go.

On the other hand, could this be Eon posturing to get MGM to move one way or the other (sell or try to continue on it's own).

"The beleaguered studio has left open the door to continue operating as a standalone entity or forming some kind of strategic partnership if MGM's 140 debtholders agree to do so, possibly through a prepackaged bankruptcy."

Here's the full Variety article.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111801 … 3&cs=1

Hopefully soon the sale of MGM will be done and dusted, so Eon can move forward with Bond 23. 

Besides the James Bond franchise has been MGM's ace in the hole since the start of the 2000's, with out  Bond  MGM would have had to close up shop some time ago given their track record of making really bad movies.

3years script treatment is not a bad thing. Craig has established himself now, be interesting to see where they go with his third movie, hopefully raise the bar further :-)

I had a chat with him today and he said he's well up for a fourth.

If 23 comes out in say 2012 after all the finacial mess is sorted Dan will be 44 then 24 comes out 2014 Dans 46 not two old at all he could even do 25 in say 2016 and he will only be 48 only 2 years older than Sir Rog when he first took up the role and 2 years younger than Brosnan when he did DAD.
Also 2012 the 50th annivesary what a way to celebrate with a new movie and just think Dan could do with all plausability the last 3 remaining Fleming titles The Hildebrand Rarity[my favorite by the way],Risico and Property Of A Lady as to Judie Denchbeing in the next 3 I dont knowbut Iam talking about a purely age thing hereshe will be about 80 by 2016.
Then in 2019 new Bond Henry Cavill who will be 36,new M and Moneypenny played by Gemma Aterton who will be arouned 33,ok I
know she played Fields but who cares she would make a great Moneypenny.
Hopefully this just might cheer some people up that even a delay could still work out ok.
Hope every one has a great day.

I see what you mean but, one must keep in mind that this is Bond at the begining of his carrer, when he was around 35- 37, I mean to have an actor thats nearing 50 (and i'm a fan of Craig dont get me wrong but, to) play a man in his late thirties, a man in the prime of his career, might be a bit of a stretch and Craig knows that, as hes read all the books. I dont know, something tells me that he'll resign before the fourth film for continuity sake. or something like that.

I have to disagree. One of the real changes in action movies in recent years since (dare I say it?) the Bourne movies is that the bar for action, and men of action has raised significantly. Indeed DC himself has played no small part in this. We can debate furious editing and hand-held camera usage as much as we like, but a creaky Sir Rog, or even worse an  impalusable and obvious  double just would not cut it any longer. Audineces, and perhaps particualrly Bond audinences need to believe that the guy on screen is capable of doing what we see. We know of course that he cant do all of it, but he must be credible. Therefore age is a factor. Brosnan looks terrific at the moment but I doubt that he could convince unless the story self consciously addressed the issue of 'aging action man' within the narrative arc (I would love to see this BTW) but Bond in movies has to be permanently at the top of his game.

If continuity was an issue then Craig's M should have been a man - as she had already debuted in Goldeneye, Q should have been present and Felix should have been white. Strangely, both characters work and Q is hardly missed, so Craig should be able to pull off acting the part of a man ten years younger than himself. And as Bond ages about a year or two per book, I should imaging that in his mid to late forties, and undoubtedly extremely fit, Craig should be able to pull it off, as he'd be about the same age as the man he is playing. Besides, if actors only prtrayed people of their own age, we'd only be left with Twilight and Highschool Musical.