Sad to hear this. I guess I'll just have to go back to the best of the Bond's, Connerys Bond. Until then, let's hope this MGM fiasco is settled quickly.8-)-{
LiamNow where was I? Let me see...Posts: 50MI6 Agent
Rumor from aptly named "OO7" forum member at MI6: Sony deal on the horizon, all hell breaking loose behind the scenes, etc. FWIW.
I love this hilariously frenzied and obscure post. Let's see what comes of it. )
Spin doctoring, just not as entertaining as the more interesting attempts. As usually spread wide and thin throughout the community. But it makes up by coming directly from the horse's take-your-pick and the added drama of hell breaking loose. Lovely!
At least the employ of SONY pretends it doesn't take fans for complete imbeciles any more. Nice try overall but I won't hold my breath.
It'll sell some copies, although I'm still fairly confident they're wrong. All the same, it's gut-churning
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The franchise won't die now, I'm confident about that. The real question is how many years it will take them to start making Bond movies again and if Craig is still onboard at that point.
My problem with this increasingly delay is the result of the next Bond film. Everytime there is been a three to six year delay between Bond films they always step up with the excess.
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,253MI6 Agent
I would think that by now Babara Broccoli and Micheal Wilson know what fans like and don't like to see in the Bond films.
After all without people paying to watch them, their would be no point in continuing to make them. As for the current news round up on Bond 23, I am glad to here that Spyglass entertainment is close to a deal, hopefully by September production will be close to resuming.
The "LA Times Hero Complex blog" talked to Craig about the stall of Bond 23. What I found most interesting was this quote:
"I felt as if we were just getting going and that we'd get the chance to make a couple more," the actor said. "I'd like to fulfill the circle with the story."
Fullfill the circle sounds like the end of a trilogy to me. Maybe I'm just reading into it.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
This is purely speculative on my part, but...
I thought that someone somewhere official had said that there had been plans to make QoS the middle section of a triology, and the potential thrd film would link onto it, as QoS had linked onto CR, but the idea was dropped when they saw the reaction to the storyline of Qos?
As I say, this could just me me going a bit mad. ?:)
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
This is purely speculative on my part, but...
I thought that someone somewhere official had said that there had been plans to make QoS the middle section of a triology, and the potential thrd film would link onto it, as QoS had linked onto CR, but the idea was dropped when they saw the reaction to the storyline of Qos?
As I say, this could just me me going a bit mad. ?:)
I don't know how it could be a trilogy. There is really to warrant one. Quantum was reveiled but the film didn't suggest they are doing anything that had to be addressed in the next film. I say give Quantum a break and try to come up with a good villian and a solid plot.
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,253MI6 Agent
It is now September and I have not heard anything yet on the possibility of MGM and Spy Glass joining up.
Pardon me if I am repeating myself, but personally I think that MGM should have tried to make better choices when selecting their other films. Remaking older movies for a contemporary audience is always risky, and lately I am getting the feeling that most people would rather not see remakes of Red Dawn, Robocop, and Fame. I can remember when it was profitable to remake an older film or adapt an old television series to a motion picture, but now it seems to me that people want to see new, high creative films like Avatar, and Inception rather then revisit the past.
Also I think that if that had been more careful in choosing their projects, they would would be so debt ridden. In the past five years other than Bond, none of MGM's films have managed to make much of a profit that I can recall.
PS: Any news on the nine remaining films awaiting release on Blu-Ray.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...these tools at MGM released "Hot Tub Time Machine" as their tentpole release of the season...so...put that on MGM's gravestone
As I've said previously, the next step has to be the U.S. Government---put 'em in charge of the "Stimulus Package," or "Health Care." For f***'s sake! To have them in any way involved with Bond's future is like feeding one's **** into a corn husker.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is purely speculative on my part, but...
I thought that someone somewhere official had said that there had been plans to make QoS the middle section of a triology, and the potential thrd film would link onto it, as QoS had linked onto CR, but the idea was dropped when they saw the reaction to the storyline of Qos?
As I say, this could just me me going a bit mad. ?:)
I don't know how it could be a trilogy. There is really to warrant one. Quantum was reveiled but the film didn't suggest they are doing anything that had to be addressed in the next film. I say give Quantum a break and try to come up with a good villian and a solid plot.
Well I assumed it was the mid-part, seeing as we were left none the wiser about who is the head of Quantum. It certainly wasn't Greene. QoS should have been quickly after CR but got pushed back, had it been its incompleteness wouldn't have mattered so much, it would seem more like the coda to CR it is.
This is purely speculative on my part, but...
I thought that someone somewhere official had said that there had been plans to make QoS the middle section of a triology, and the potential thrd film would link onto it, as QoS had linked onto CR, but the idea was dropped when they saw the reaction to the storyline of Qos?
As I say, this could just me me going a bit mad. ?:)
I don't know how it could be a trilogy. There is really to warrant one. Quantum was reveiled but the film didn't suggest they are doing anything that had to be addressed in the next film. I say give Quantum a break and try to come up with a good villian and a solid plot.
Well I assumed it was the mid-part, seeing as we were left none the wiser about who is the head of Quantum. It certainly wasn't Greene. QoS should have been quickly after CR but got pushed back, had it been its incompleteness wouldn't have mattered so much, it would seem more like the coda to CR it is.
I really wish they would have just summed up Quantum in the course of two films in the vein of SPECTRE in the first two Bond films so at this point they could have moved on to something else.
I remember reading that something was coming to a head on/around the 12th of the month, so we shall see
MGM is on something like their sixth or seventh debt extension. The current extension ends in mid September, which is what i think you're thinking of. I've been following this whole MGM fiasco over at TORN and the creditors seem to just continue to give them more extensions, so i'm not too hopeful about this. Then again you never know, this does have to end at some point.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
edited September 2010
Disregard this post.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
Looking around the forums lately, it appears that Michael Fassbender is becoming a fan favourite to be the next Bond with Tom Hardy gaining ground too. I'm not convinced by Hardy but haven't seen enough of Fasbender to have a view. I have no problem with Henry Cavill doing it but I have a strange feeling he won't feature next time. If they do make Bond 23 with Daniel Craig, all concerned will have to lighten up a bit after QoS.
Oh I thought Fassbender (the English officer with the flawed German in Inglorious B+sterds) would have made a great Fleming, though too old to play Fleming in his 20s, but far better than others mooted for the role.
Hmmmmm, this seems like a genuine improvement and a chance for Bond 23 to come out before 2012:
There is finally a light at the end of the tunnel for MGM, Bond 23 and The Hobbit.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Spyglass Entertainment bosses Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum are poised to take over as co-chairmen and co-CEOs of MGM now that they've signed a non-binding letter of intent. There are also plans in motion for a recapitalization of the studio where MGM's $4 billion in debt would be converted to equity as part of a bankruptcy arrangement.
"Under Barber and Birnbaum, MGM would need a large cash infusion to fund production of new movies including a planned James Bond sequel and two films based on The Hobbit to be co-financed with Warner Bros.," according to the Times.
As part of the deal, Spyglass would essentially gut MGM's labor force and make a deal with another studio to distribute their films domestically. Warners, Sony and Fox have all been mentioned in the past as potential new distributors. Warners is, as mentioned above, co-financing The Hobbit, while Sony distributed the last two Bond films with Daniel Craig and Fox distributes the Bond films on home video. Now the L.A. Times says there's another player looking to get into the game.
Paramount, which co-financed Star Trek and Dinner for Schmucks with Spyglass, is reportedly keen on getting their mitts on 007. Ironically, Paramount also distributes the Jack Ryan films. Just imagine 007 and Ryan being under the same roof now.
Hmmmmm, this seems like a genuine improvement and a chance for Bond 23 to come out before 2012:
There is finally a light at the end of the tunnel for MGM, Bond 23 and The Hobbit.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Spyglass Entertainment bosses Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum are poised to take over as co-chairmen and co-CEOs of MGM now that they've signed a non-binding letter of intent. There are also plans in motion for a recapitalization of the studio where MGM's $4 billion in debt would be converted to equity as part of a bankruptcy arrangement.
"Under Barber and Birnbaum, MGM would need a large cash infusion to fund production of new movies including a planned James Bond sequel and two films based on The Hobbit to be co-financed with Warner Bros.," according to the Times.
As part of the deal, Spyglass would essentially gut MGM's labor force and make a deal with another studio to distribute their films domestically. Warners, Sony and Fox have all been mentioned in the past as potential new distributors. Warners is, as mentioned above, co-financing The Hobbit, while Sony distributed the last two Bond films with Daniel Craig and Fox distributes the Bond films on home video. Now the L.A. Times says there's another player looking to get into the game.
Paramount, which co-financed Star Trek and Dinner for Schmucks with Spyglass, is reportedly keen on getting their mitts on 007. Ironically, Paramount also distributes the Jack Ryan films. Just imagine 007 and Ryan being under the same roof now.
I'm only guessing here, but I don't think Spyglass would be looking to make this type of investment in MGM for a Bond film to be released two years from now with someone other than Daniel Craig playing James Bond. Although Craig may not be universally loved as Bond on this website, the box office take of CR and QOS indicates that the general public is more than satisfied with him. Add to this that Craig, despite being a "serious" actor actually enjoys playing Bond and is grounded in reality enough to understand the opportunities it has created for him ....DC will be back as Bond in 23 and 24 and hope upon hope things will work out with Spyglass and Bond 23 will be back on track. It looks like a major bidding war is stacking up for distribution also. I'm guessing which ever studio gets distribution rights is going to have topony up significant $$$$$ toward production also.
Actually, This is good news to me.
Now don't misunderstand me, I believe Daniel Craig to be a fine actor. He is very good, and having seen him before in a number of roles, I was dubious that he could actually pull off a grandiose role as James Bond.
Having seen both Quantum of Solice and Casino Royale, I must say that I am completely and utterly disappointed with what has been done with the franchise.
Q= Missing. I know the actor passed away, and he will be sorely missed. But I missed the interaction between Q and Bond. He had such annoyance for Bond for two reasons, Bond's cavalier attitude whenever Bond walked into the lab, and his blatant display of disrespect for the weaponry and gadgets that Q would slave over. That is something I looked forward to with each new release. That, quite sadly, is gone. It would not work with the way Craig handles the new Bond.
Moneypenny= Ms. Moneypenny was a staple, the one person Bond would always return to and know his friendship with her was solid, even though she wanted more out of it. The later Moneypenny was much more independent, quite understandably when she realized the Bond was not the only fish in the sea. I liked that.
Personally I believe the casting of Judy Densch was a stroke of genius. I have no qualms there.
But Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond. I read all the available novels written by Fleming. In all of them I saw the same features of James Bond. The loose lock of black hair that hung in his eyes, a scar he had on his face, small but noticeable. His looks were compared to Hoagy Charmichael. He moved slow and determined, like a panther. When he was with women, he was gentle, romantic, but ready to give it up at a moments notice for Queen and Country.
Daniel Craig is built like a wrestler, and he walks like someone looking to pick a fight. The look on his face says "Talk to me and I'll shoot you in the face" He is not the smooth talking, calculating secret agent that I have known since I read my first JB novel, back when I was 10.
It was Casino Royale. Imagine my delight when Dr. No was released. I thought that Connery fit the bill perfect as described in the books. His walk was just like I had imagined it. His movements determined and careful. I was delighted.
George Lazenby came along, and I thought his take on the role was admirable. In fact, the more I watch OHMSS, the better I like it. It would have been interesting to see where the franchise might have gone if Roger Moore had not come into the picture.
Moore I thought was too foppish for the part. He seemed to portray an attitude of someone looking for someone to tell a joke to. His best movie was For Your Eyes Only. In that, I felt he did the job well. But the others I was a little sad about.
Then came Timothy Dalton. I thought the franchise had taken a well needed shot in the arm. Here was the steel edged secret agent I had missed so much.
|Pierce Brosnan did the part proud! When I saw Goldeneye, I thought that the entire James Bond package had come full circle. He played it perfectly and beautifully.
I apologize for the fans out there who like where the franchise has gone.
Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond.
He is built like a fireplug.
He is blond! Bond was not blond!
The violence meter has been cranked to the limit.
The women are not nearly as stunning.
He seems as suave as a rollercoaster smashing through the dining room wall.
His only gadget is a cell phone.
Hell, EVERYONE has a cell phone!
My apologies to Daniel Craig.
Christopher Reeve was Superman.
Peter Sellers was Inspector Clouseau.
Dean Martin was Matt Helm.
Don Adams was Maxwell Smart.
But Daniel Craig (My Opinion) is NOT James Bond.
He seems about as romantic to me as a rabid dog in a kindergarten.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Welcome to AJB, DannLopez {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Welcome to AJB DannLopez. The literary Bond has been gone for a long time....as are the 50's, 60's, etc. I like Craig as Bond very much, however all your points are well taken. One of the things that alot of us are curious about is what turn Craig's charactorization of Bond will take. Craig and EON have hinted strongly that Craig's Bond will morph into a somewhat more traditional idea of Bond as the charactor developes film to film. What I really want is all parties involved to get the next Bond film back on track asap so we can see where EON, Craig and company take 007.
Comments
I love this hilariously frenzied and obscure post. Let's see what comes of it.
Spin doctoring, just not as entertaining as the more interesting attempts. As usually spread wide and thin throughout the community. But it makes up by coming directly from the horse's take-your-pick and the added drama of hell breaking loose. Lovely!
At least the employ of SONY pretends it doesn't take fans for complete imbeciles any more. Nice try overall but I won't hold my breath.
Wilde
It'll sell some copies, although I'm still fairly confident they're wrong. All the same, it's gut-churning
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
QoS was released in 2008...I bet in 2013 personnaly. Without Craig, for many reasons. Just a hunch...
After all without people paying to watch them, their would be no point in continuing to make them. As for the current news round up on Bond 23, I am glad to here that Spyglass entertainment is close to a deal, hopefully by September production will be close to resuming.
"I felt as if we were just getting going and that we'd get the chance to make a couple more," the actor said. "I'd like to fulfill the circle with the story."
Fullfill the circle sounds like the end of a trilogy to me. Maybe I'm just reading into it.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/08/james-bond-007-daniel-craig.html
http://apbateman.com
I thought that someone somewhere official had said that there had been plans to make QoS the middle section of a triology, and the potential thrd film would link onto it, as QoS had linked onto CR, but the idea was dropped when they saw the reaction to the storyline of Qos?
As I say, this could just me me going a bit mad. ?:)
I don't know how it could be a trilogy. There is really to warrant one. Quantum was reveiled but the film didn't suggest they are doing anything that had to be addressed in the next film. I say give Quantum a break and try to come up with a good villian and a solid plot.
Pardon me if I am repeating myself, but personally I think that MGM should have tried to make better choices when selecting their other films. Remaking older movies for a contemporary audience is always risky, and lately I am getting the feeling that most people would rather not see remakes of Red Dawn, Robocop, and Fame. I can remember when it was profitable to remake an older film or adapt an old television series to a motion picture, but now it seems to me that people want to see new, high creative films like Avatar, and Inception rather then revisit the past.
Also I think that if that had been more careful in choosing their projects, they would would be so debt ridden. In the past five years other than Bond, none of MGM's films have managed to make much of a profit that I can recall.
PS: Any news on the nine remaining films awaiting release on Blu-Ray.
As I've said previously, the next step has to be the U.S. Government---put 'em in charge of the "Stimulus Package," or "Health Care." For f***'s sake! To have them in any way involved with Bond's future is like feeding one's **** into a corn husker.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well I assumed it was the mid-part, seeing as we were left none the wiser about who is the head of Quantum. It certainly wasn't Greene. QoS should have been quickly after CR but got pushed back, had it been its incompleteness wouldn't have mattered so much, it would seem more like the coda to CR it is.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I really wish they would have just summed up Quantum in the course of two films in the vein of SPECTRE in the first two Bond films so at this point they could have moved on to something else.
MGM is on something like their sixth or seventh debt extension. The current extension ends in mid September, which is what i think you're thinking of. I've been following this whole MGM fiasco over at TORN and the creditors seem to just continue to give them more extensions, so i'm not too hopeful about this. Then again you never know, this does have to end at some point.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Roger Moore 1927-2017
IGN
How exactly is it ironic Ryan and Bond are "under the same roof" ?
Now don't misunderstand me, I believe Daniel Craig to be a fine actor. He is very good, and having seen him before in a number of roles, I was dubious that he could actually pull off a grandiose role as James Bond.
Having seen both Quantum of Solice and Casino Royale, I must say that I am completely and utterly disappointed with what has been done with the franchise.
Q= Missing. I know the actor passed away, and he will be sorely missed. But I missed the interaction between Q and Bond. He had such annoyance for Bond for two reasons, Bond's cavalier attitude whenever Bond walked into the lab, and his blatant display of disrespect for the weaponry and gadgets that Q would slave over. That is something I looked forward to with each new release. That, quite sadly, is gone. It would not work with the way Craig handles the new Bond.
Moneypenny= Ms. Moneypenny was a staple, the one person Bond would always return to and know his friendship with her was solid, even though she wanted more out of it. The later Moneypenny was much more independent, quite understandably when she realized the Bond was not the only fish in the sea. I liked that.
Personally I believe the casting of Judy Densch was a stroke of genius. I have no qualms there.
But Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond. I read all the available novels written by Fleming. In all of them I saw the same features of James Bond. The loose lock of black hair that hung in his eyes, a scar he had on his face, small but noticeable. His looks were compared to Hoagy Charmichael. He moved slow and determined, like a panther. When he was with women, he was gentle, romantic, but ready to give it up at a moments notice for Queen and Country.
Daniel Craig is built like a wrestler, and he walks like someone looking to pick a fight. The look on his face says "Talk to me and I'll shoot you in the face" He is not the smooth talking, calculating secret agent that I have known since I read my first JB novel, back when I was 10.
It was Casino Royale. Imagine my delight when Dr. No was released. I thought that Connery fit the bill perfect as described in the books. His walk was just like I had imagined it. His movements determined and careful. I was delighted.
George Lazenby came along, and I thought his take on the role was admirable. In fact, the more I watch OHMSS, the better I like it. It would have been interesting to see where the franchise might have gone if Roger Moore had not come into the picture.
Moore I thought was too foppish for the part. He seemed to portray an attitude of someone looking for someone to tell a joke to. His best movie was For Your Eyes Only. In that, I felt he did the job well. But the others I was a little sad about.
Then came Timothy Dalton. I thought the franchise had taken a well needed shot in the arm. Here was the steel edged secret agent I had missed so much.
|Pierce Brosnan did the part proud! When I saw Goldeneye, I thought that the entire James Bond package had come full circle. He played it perfectly and beautifully.
I apologize for the fans out there who like where the franchise has gone.
Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond.
He is built like a fireplug.
He is blond! Bond was not blond!
The violence meter has been cranked to the limit.
The women are not nearly as stunning.
He seems as suave as a rollercoaster smashing through the dining room wall.
His only gadget is a cell phone.
Hell, EVERYONE has a cell phone!
My apologies to Daniel Craig.
Christopher Reeve was Superman.
Peter Sellers was Inspector Clouseau.
Dean Martin was Matt Helm.
Don Adams was Maxwell Smart.
But Daniel Craig (My Opinion) is NOT James Bond.
He seems about as romantic to me as a rabid dog in a kindergarten.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM