Breaking news — Bond 23 with Craig officially canceled

[Kristatos]

one guy admitted he did't like Bond movies but Mendes would have been great and it would have been great to see how he changed the character. Someone else said it would be an emotionally driven Bond

Who are "one guy" and "someone else"? Are these people connected with the production, or is it just internet chatter? If this is what reliable sources are saying, though, then I'm almost glad Bond 23 has been cancelled. Have EON learned nothing from QOS?

[Omega]

one guy admitted he did't like Bond movies but Mendes would have been great and it would have been great to see how he changed the character. Someone else said it would be an emotionally driven Bond

Who are "one guy" and "someone else"? Are these people connected with the production, or is it just internet chatter? If this is what reliable sources are saying, though, then I'm almost glad Bond 23 has been cancelled. Have EON learned nothing from QOS?

Internet chatter I guess. I went to over a dozen film sites this morning looking over their Bond stuff. The opinions on Mendes are what I was making examples of I cant remember which sites were which now. Although the one place claiming both Craig and Mendes will stay is deadline and that seems to be a lot of fanboy -I wanna believe stuff.

THR has it than Mendes has moved on to other project, which I take as he is no longer waiting for Bond. Although maybe it means he is finding work to fill the time. But all this talk of they will save themselves remaining pure and chaste until Bond 23 is given a go is too fantastic to believe. I can see it if this time next year things are rolling but going by the history of the franchise that would be very fast and besides I think Craig's next 2 jobs almost rule out 2012.

IMDb has Bond 23 as a 2014 production, 6 years after Qos and long after Craig looks too old. If Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Cowboys and Aliens is a success then there will be sequels and then definitely there will be no Craig because those sequels will be quick like the Holmes and transformers.
Anyone every notice that other franchises like Transformers, GI joes (2012), Iron Man, Holmes with are intensive to make get done without a lot of complaining of how hard it is. and those actors do a lot more between sequels.

[Kristatos]

Anyone every notice that other franchises like Transformers, GI joes (2012), Iron Man, Holmes with are intensive to make get done without a lot of complaining of how hard it is. and those actors do a lot more between sequels.

Maybe something to do with those franchises having producers who earned their position rather than inheriting it?

[katied]

Personally I don't understand the need to recognize 50 years of Bond. Very popular opinion at the fanboy boards, though.

[Kristatos]

Personally I don't understand the need to recognize 50 years of Bond. Very popular opinion at the fanboy boards, though.

I think it should be commemmorated...by a clip show on ITV1. This idea of commemorating the films' history in the films themselves, that began with DAD, is way too self-referential for my tastes.

[Omega]

Personally I don't understand the need to recognize 50 years of Bond. Very popular opinion at the fanboy boards, though.

I think it should be commemmorated...by a clip show on ITV1. This idea of commemorating the films' history in the films themselves, that began with DAD, is way too self-referential for my tastes.

DAD was too aware of the series itself as I said that was the point of the anniversary Bond#20. CR was another one that was too aware of the series. I think before much longer that fact may become more of a detractor to CR. They knew all too well they were steering away from a 40 years history and it showed. Commemorating the movies with the movies is a bad idea and it before DAD they never did it so don't go back to it. I think in the long run everyone Pierce Brosnan included would have been happier without the 20th movie celebration part of it.

[Blowfeld]

Gambit at Alt 007 forum is the original poster. Instead of just coping them I wanted to give credit where credit was due.

Mazer any comments?

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/34355/p ... bond-movie

During the games launch for the re-imagining of Goldeneye 007 and James Bond 007: Blood Stone, Michael Wilson, producer of the movies since 1979, said the words that everybody wanted to hear. He believes that the studio wranglings, and enforced hiatus for the franchise will be over soon.

MGM has put the next Bond film (tentatively dubbed Bond 23) on indefinite hold. It was to be directed by Sam Mendes, star Daniel Craig, obviously, and focus on the evil organisation uncovered by Bond in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

However, the British press reported on July 6 that, due to cash problems, the latest edition in the franchise had be canned for good.

It now seems that announcement was premature: "We hope to be bringing you another James Bond film soon," said Wilson while introducing the two new Bond games.

His quote adds credence to the recent claims made by both Hollywood-centric site, Risky Business, and Deadline. They state that Bond 23 is merely suspended until the sale of MGM is finalised.

We certainly hope so. After all, Quantum of Solace, critical reception aside, made over US$586million worldwide on a budget of US$200million, not including DVD and Blu-ray revenue. To kill the franchise now would've been madness, even on a raw financial level.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/110/1106619p1.html

Wilson, 007 producer since 1985's A View To A Kill, did offer reassurances that Quantum of Solace wouldn't be the last time we saw Bond on the big-screen by saying - "Both Barbara [Brocolli, his Bond co-producer] and I are convinced that we'll be bringing you another Bond film soon."

[Mazer Rackham]

What do you want me to say sunshine? He is old and is easily confused?

Nah, Mikey is a nice guy despite all the crap I give him. Doesn't make him genius either.
The Bond Brand is worth more if it isn't viewed as indefinitely canceled. That is why postponed is such a sticking point. His sister tired to throw her weight around and found out she isn't the 500 pound gorilla she thought. For the second time in Bond history the people with the power are the Bond partners, there are plenty of things they have final say over that they were ignored on.
The people taking control are annoyed, aggravated, aggrieved even, and like everyone else in Hollywood have taken a good look at the books and are not buying the hype anymore. It is possible Mikey and Babs have come to an understanding with the creditors and have more of firm idea when they'll get funding again, however there is nothing to say yet and no possible way anything could ever be confirmed at this point. There is nothing to get excited over. You know 8m of the CR take went right into Quark pre-production, talk about a swindle

Best possible thing MGM could do is bench Babs and co. until 2013 or later. At least knock the anniversary nonsense out of her head. A Craig anniversary film would be atrocious. The hallmarks she tired to invoke in Quark were so badly used.

[Mazer Rackham]

This is a well researched article. For a few instances I heard different figures used, 300m for Sony's part of the investment MGM. Which $ony got back + some distributing the Bonds. Remember going by some of the numbers the Bond movies are in the red since TWINE crawling out with home video sales. Thus making video sales critical to the studio's bottom line. Dangerous although over the last fourteen years not unusual. CR had disappointing sales compared to DAD and Quark, well I am sure everyone here knows it by heart by now.

Who killed James Bond?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/55278510-9527 ... ab49a.html

[007]

Interesting read. Especially the bit about Babs & MGW being difficult to work with because they think they are the only people who know anything about Bond.

[Dr. No]

Neat pictures!



Its too long I can get through it I am going to wait for the Cliffs Notes version

[Mazer Rackham]

Interesting read. Especially the bit about Babs & MGW being difficult to work with because they think they are the only people who know anything about Bond.

Cubby started the tradition of being difficult in his own way, but it wasn't very hard to see where he was protecting the franchise from the studios airheads. Burt Reynolds anyone?

Now it is different era his children are screwing up the franchise and outsiders now have better idea of what Bond should be like. One of the issues I think add considerably to the tensions of working with them is the Studio owns half of Bond. They are not gracing MGM by letting them distribute and pay for Bond, it is a partnership. The studio wanted a different director for DAD, one of the things they have the right to specify, they were ignored outright. The Broccoli's unfortunately have learned that they can throw their weight around eventually steamrolling their opposition. Problem is Cubby knew how to hold his cards, his daughter doesn't. At the moment she is flailing about, she completely misread the situation. Thinking she could force the matter she made moves that were untenable. Despite what it says in the article below Sony is the last people they want to work with for various reasons. In fact they owe Sony two movies as it is in a deal the reached in 2009 I believe. Besides there are other projects they are supposed to be working on, why aren't they?

Add to that this:

James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are reportedly "panicked" about the future of their spy series.

The 23rd 007 outing has been put on hold indefinitely due to the financial uncertainty surrounding MGM, the studio that owns the rights to the Bond franchise and is up for sale with £4 billion worth of debt.

An MGM insider told The Hollywood Reporter: "They're completely panicked that if they go five, six years without a Bond movie, it'll be over. They don't want to kill the golden goose."

Broccoli allegedly wants Sony or Time Warner to buy MGM, but is concerned about a potential Lionsgate takeover because the studio's entire 12-month production budget is less than the cost of a Bond movie.

Star Daniel Craig has insisted that he will return to play Bond a third time when the studio's financial woes have been resolved, with the MGM source adding that executives admired Broccoli and Wilson for making the "bold strokes" move of casting him.

"Barbara said, 'I really like this guy, Daniel Craig'," the source commented. "We were horrified. We liked Eric Bana, Hugh Jackman. To her credit, she thought Craig was a great actor, had this magnetism. We wanted to do one more with Pierce Brosnan... [the producers] are generally cautious, but they are capable of doing bold strokes."

Former Bond screenwriter Bruce Feirstein, who penned the latest 007 video game Blood Stone, said that he is certain the character will be back for more movies.

"I'm not worried about 007," he said. "There's a line at the end of every movie which we used in the video game: It's that James Bond will return... It's been true for 50 years. A hiccup like what's going on at MGM is not going to change that."

[Omega]

where do you get this stuff about them and Sony? I just read a story about how they would like to work with Sony because "Sony Spends"

[Mazer Rackham]

Sony is a behind the scenes story. They may say to acquaintances Sony spends but they know first hand they don't. Sony is not willy-nilly with their own money as the Brocs found out. Sony spent 110m on a Jolie spy movie, 20m of which went to Jolie. Sony refused the Spider-man 4 team who wanted over 200m, a franchise that made $2.4billion. For one of their favorite actors Will Smith they allowed for around 150m, incidentally Hancock made more than any Bond film in recent history.

As Sony found at one of the benefits of recasting is the cost of the star goes way down $500k for the new Spidy vs the millions for McGuire. Has to be on any studio's radar for Bond as well.


Probably will not matter to most here but here is a break down of the Bond cost and history;

Babs and Mikey take home a healthy chunk of change for producing, without this Bond costs would be very different. Going off memory for this it was something like 30m for DAD we can assume their fees have stayed they same, likely increasing slightly over the years.

DAD and CR would be closer to $110m films without the outrageous Broccoli graft.

After The Man With The Golden Gun, Bond shifted gears in a major way. The cost for movies starting with the Spy Who Loved Me more than doubled, Cubby took a gamble doubling down on Bond, unlike his children he actually put the money on screen and it showed.

From TSWLM to GE Cubby spent on average of 19% of the gross on making the movies. Not counting the total cost which include promotion, up to the studios more than the producer. However it would be around 40% counting total cost.

After Cubby passed cost instantly ballooned. They jumped from 17% cost of gross for the last film he produced to 32%. Stays about there although Quark (QOS) throws it out of whack. On average counting total cost they spend close to 55% of the gross making the movies, once again Quark throws it all out the window and DAD and CR averages helped lighten the load.

However this does not explain what a dog Quark was and why it has hurt the Bond brand in the studios minds. At $230m if we take the low ball cost estimates it barely breaks into the black with $10m; using the recent 40 to 41% estimates for the studio take. It doesn't break even if total production cost like advertising are figured in. On top of this the DVD sales for QOS (Quark) tanked, this is where the studio was going to make its money on Bond, also where the MGM has gone to make money since Cubby's children took over.

Any studio looking at a new Bond including MGM has to look at this with a eye towards cutting cost to the bare bones. The current model is pure poison to the studio.

[Kristatos]

However this does not explain what a dog Quark was and why it has hurt the Bond brand in the studios minds. At $230m if we take the low ball cost estimates it barely breaks into the black with $10m; using the recent 40 to 41% estimates for the studio take. It doesn't break even if total production cost like advertising are figured in. On top of this the DVD sales for QOS (Quark) tanked, this is where the studio was going to make its money on Bond, also where the MGM has gone to make money since Cubby's children took over.

What about TV sales, Mazer? As I recall, CR sold to the USA network for an unusually large amount of money. Whether they would pay that sort of money for a dog like Quark is another matter.

[Mazer Rackham]

Good question. TV and other sales are very big business and important. That income has been falling too.

At the time I thought the $20m USA spent on 5 year CR deal was cheap. I thought CBS has paid more for DAD and TWINE. SHO has QOS but that was likely not a big earner, probably a prepackaged pre-signed deal the studio had. I don't know if the TV rights for Quark have been sold. So far a Turkish TV station got the rights there but the big markets (Uk & US) I don't know. Might try to look this up tomorrow.

I asked a question about the production fees finally got an answer, the numbers I have are what the studio actually paid out after all considerations. It looks like the Bond movies have been in the red since TND, the studio backend after all bills are paid, but not seriously so since they dug themselves out right away, unlike LTK taking 7 years or more.

[Mazer Rackham]

TV rights usually sell for 10-12% the domestic gross. A Bond movie is a little different of course. USA probably looks at is as they paid $4m a year for CR, which is probably cheap, they will broadcast it X number of times on their network/affiliated networks each year.

[Blowfeld]

These are dark days for James Bond fans. It will likely be years before 007 returns to the screen, thanks to money troubles at MGM, Bond’s longtime studio, which has been up for sale since November. Even Daniel Craig seems to have moved on, signing up for the lead in a different potential franchise, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The last time the Bond series was put on this sort of “indefinite” hold was back in the early 1990s, after a series of legal battles (and Timothy Dalton) nearly wrecked the series. It took six years to get it up and running again. And in Hollywood today, six years is an eternity. “No franchise can afford to be away from screens for that long anymore,” says a former MGM exec. “You lose too much momentum. Even for Bond, it could be deadly.” Of course, Bond has defied death before — just ask Blofeld — so we’re not counting him out just yet. One possibility: “[MGM] should sell the Bond franchise for a billion dollars to some sovereign company in Abu Dhabi and promise to make Bond movies in Abu Dhabi from now on,” suggest one financial analyst familiar with the MGM sale. The name is Bond, Jamal Bond. We could live with that.

For more on the Bond franchise’s woes, pick up the new issue of Entertainment Weekly, on stands August 6th.

This story can be found at Is James Bond Dead

[Dr. No]

Not a big surprise. I have no doubt Bond will be back but it will be different when they get back to making it they couldn't evne go from 2002 to 2006 with out changing it, and that was only a short break compared to what this is shaping up to be

IMHO they really need to think about what they want Bond to be they grasped at the reboot Bourne straw from whatevery one is saying now they ddin't have a long term plan behind it. A new young Bond, a man who looks the part and back to basics of what made the films last for 50 years. 2 movies do not justify Craig's spy

[Blowfeld]

Next James Bond film in limbo
MGM's financial woes, star Daniel Craig's unavailability and the lack of a shooting script look to delay the lucrative franchise's return until 2012 at the earliest.

Problems. Many problems.

The obstacles littered in front of a new James Bond movie may be more devilish than anything one of the film franchises' many villains could have dreamed up. In addition to financing woes and increasingly crowded talent schedules, there's this niggling fact: The script isn't ready.

Last week a fresh speed-bump was laid on the road to the 23rd film in the Bond franchise when "Quantum of Solace" and "Casino Royale" star Daniel Craig formally committed to "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." David Fincher's remake of the Swedish-language bestseller won't begin shooting until later this year, meaning that Craig wouldn't be free until later in 2011 at the earliest. Even then, he'd need to navigate around promoting Jon Favreau's "Cowboys & Aliens," which he's currently shooting (and which could also spawn a sequel, on which the actor has an option).

Craig's moves away from Bond, meanwhile, come as MGM sits in a state of financial limbo. The company has accrued nearly $4 billion in debt and has received a sixth debt forbearance on interest payments until Sept. 15 and is unable, in the meantime, to fund new movies. Legal agreements apparently prevent the Bond film from being extricated from the studio by Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, the tight-lipped pair who control the franchise through their EON Productions company.

But while MGM's financial woes have been a focus of much of the news coverage — which alternately have had the movie "canceled" and "suspended" — sources say that those difficulties have not been the only hold-up. The secrecy valued by EON scares off most public comment on the film's status, but sources familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity say that creative discussions among the writers and producers have also hampered the process.

Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes worked on the script last spring, the sources said, polishing the contributions of "Frost/Nixon" screenwriter Peter Morgan. Morgan, in turn, had rewritten parts of an earlier screenplay by Bond veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.

EON has typically developed a script to a point of their satisfaction before sending it to the studio that will finance and distribute the given film (a pairing of MGM and Sony Pictures for the past two films). That has yet to happen with the new Bond, which is to be financed and distributed by MGM.

The creative issues around the new Bond are notable because it means that even if MGM's financial wrinkles were ironed out — in the form of a potential Time Warner acquisition of MGM, a corporate link-up with Spyglass or Summit Entertainment or, perhaps, the arrival of a white-knight outside financier for Bond — it would mean the movie would still not be ready to go. And by the time it was, it could run into actor scheduling issues, extending an already long layoff.

Switching Bond actors is not believed to be on the table — though as the delay wears on, it's not lost on some observers that Craig will go deeper into his 40s before a new film is shot. (He turned 42 in March.)

The exact script issues on the new Bond remain shrouded in mystery, but the difficulties aren't entirely surprising given the abundance of top creators and a franchise with ever-more complex mythology. Moreover, the new Bond film has always been framed as the third in the trilogy that began with "Casino Royale." And with the need to wrap up many dangling plot lines — in this case, Bond's quest for resolution after the death of romantic interest Vesper Lynd, among others — the third movie in a trilogy is typically hardest to lock down.

MGM declined comment. A call to EON's office in London was not returned, and the Santa Monica office of EON holding company Danjaq also yielded no comment.

The stakes are high for numerous players with Bond, which was given a jolt with "Casino" and "Solace," which earned more than $1.1 billion around the globe. And it heartened fans, who found in Craig's Bond a darker, subtler take that moved away from some of the spy-movie clichés and over-the-top special effects associated with earlier versions.

Even with MGM's difficulties looming, it wasn't supposed to turn out like this. When Mendes and Morgan came on to the film early in the year, MGM officials were quietly hoping the movie would be in production in the summer, for a release in 2011.

Now the parties have scattered, including the man who was supposed to lead it out of the wilderness: While his camp has not ruled out a return to Bond, Mendes has begun preparing a new movie, the Ian McEwan adaptation "On Chesil Beach," which could begin shooting this fall.

Didn't they 86 all this trilogy nonsense some time back?