Bond 23 Delayed "Indefinitely" (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Cheer up, everybody. Speaking at the launch of the new James Bond video game, the second worst producer in the history of movies reassured fans that Bond 23 is not dead yet:

Quote: (Michael G.) 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 [Broccoli, his Bond co-producer] and I are convinced that we'll be bringing you another Bond film soon."

The rest is here:


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

 

[Richard--W]

"Bond is on hold, but all I can say is I want to get going on it as quickly as possible” Daniel Craig told the San Diego Comic Con, where he appeared to promote Cowboys and Aliens. MI6 sums up the situation: http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=8772&catid=107&t=mi6&s=news The Hollywood Reporter interviewed an unidentified MGM insider who said that EON producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are "completely panicked that if they go five, six years without a Bond movie, it'll be over," a former MGM insider said. "They don't want to kill the golden goose." The article goes on to say that the producers are hoping Time Warner's low bid to buy MGM will be accepted, and they are also pushing Sony Pictures to be involved because Sony spends big bucks. They do not want to see MGM go to Lionsgate because Lionsgate's yearly operating budget is the same as the cost of making a Bond film. Barbara Broccoli also offered some personal observations on studio executives, but you will have to read that for yourself in The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i269d10c432f5e28750c2037e78a4583c?pn=2 There is also a hint that Bond 23, when it does go into production, will be more comic-book oriented because comic-book movies are enormously popular now. The third chapter in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy will not be delayed any longer than is necessary.

 

[Tim Glover]

Taken from an avid Bond fan growing up.....I loved Craig in Casino Royale. Loved every moment of it and thought it was a terrific reboot of a dead franchise. But didn't care for Quantum at all. Felt nothing for the characters and the story was weak as was the villain.

My thoughts are that the Bourne films and other effective films like them have hurt James Bond. This is just my opinion, but I think there's just not that freshness anymore. Quantum for me was a total misfire and a blown opportunity to really take the character and really evolve into something special. It was kind of a Royale pt 2 and mindless action and Bond shouldve been a tad more refined and cool headed. Felt like Rambo at times.

As much as I loved Casino Royale and have many cherished Bond memories, I could live without ever seeing a new Bond again. I think they've run their course.

Just my .02 cents.

 

[WinstonCely]

I understand what you mean, Tim. The Bond from Moore back in the films, and the one from the books, was a Bond of a different era. He encapsulated the ideals of an older generation and unfortunately, a "true" James Bond is a relic that doesn't translate well into the 21st century.


I still like Quantum, but mostly because I love that it finished the "origin" of the new Bond. It was convoluted and a bit dull, but I had high hopes that they would use both of these as a way to bridge the gap between the old Bond and one that actually makes sense by today's expectations and ideals. Besides, I thought it was still entertaining enough that I didn't feel like I wasted my money. Hell, it was way better than a lot of the stinkers that the other Bonds have had.


I think Goldeneye had a bit of this "stop being so out-dated" thing going for it, especially in the scenes between M and Bond, but it was dropped after that and never brought back. The trick would be to give Bond all his charm and lethality, but better translate what it is to be a spy today. However, I don't want another movie filled with someone calling him a "dinosaur," and trying not to be so chauvinistic. It wouldn't make sense unless we made Bond 60 years old. He should already be packaged as a man of our age, and I think Craig was well on his way to that. If they were able to do this, then the franchise could still be relevant today.

 

[Richard--W]

If Bond didn't translate well into the 21st century they wouldn't still be making movies about him. If characters and concepts older than Bond, like Beowulf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Romeo and Juliet, Frankenstein, Wyatt Earp, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Zorro, Tarzan, Flash Gordon, Superman, Batman, The Green Hornet, Philip Marlowe, and countless others can still find audience acceptance and enthusiasm, so can Bond. Further, the literary Bond by Ian Fleming is a very different entity from the movie incarnation played by Roger Moore. Paradoxically, Moore's version may be shallow and artificial, but at least he is not a stupid dork, which places him closer to Fleming's Bond than does Daniel Craig. The so-called "origin story" given to Craig is not an origin story at all. An origin story would show the young James Bond going to college at Eaton, becoming a Commander in the Royal Navy, being recruited into the Secret Service, and trained in spycraft. That happens in life today as it did when Fleming wrote the novels. The film version of Casino Royale teaches James Bond how to wear a dinner jacket, control his ego, and feel guilty when women spies get killed. That's political correctness, not spycraft, and not an origin story.


The literary Bond spent most of his adventures fighting international terrorists and crime lords, which are current themes in novels today and in the news. In fact, some of Fleming's premises and plots that seemed so fantastic forty or fifty years ago are as current as the news today. Blofeld's schemes in the novels seem down-to-earth compared to a certain international terrorist who hijacked jet planes to use as weapons of destruction. Hijacking nuclear materials (Thunderball) and threatening bacterial warfare (OHMSS) isn't fiction anymore, it's as real as anthrax being mailed to people in Washington D.C. If that isn't relevant, what is? Fleming's ideas had real-life counterparts in his career as a spy, and he wrote characters that were slight exaggerations of people who actually lived. His premises and plots are being implemented by best-selling novelists today who write contemporary espionage. It is erroneous to say the literary Bond is a relic of the Cold War when he fought the Cold War in only a couple of the novels. In some of the novels and short stories, Bond doesn't even kill anybody. You haven't seen the literary Bond in the movies yet, although the originating films came very close, so I would not dismiss his viability so casually.


Which "ideals of an older generation" are you referring to, exactly?

Can you list them?


The literary James Bond is extremely intelligent, instinctive, and serious. How does dumbing him down in Casino Royale make him more relevant for today, exactly?


Do you have any other reason to state that Bond is a relic, aside from books you haven't read and a desire to cheerlead for Daniel Craig?

The trick would be to give Bond all his charm and lethality, but better translate what it is to be a spy today. However, I don't want another movie filled with someone calling him a "dinosaur,"

We agree on that.


I will point out that being a spy today may not be much different from being a spy yesterday, say in 1953 or 1965 or 1975. Three weeks ago the USA traded captured Russian spies for American spies captured by the Russians. Instead of parking the sedans back to back on Gleinicke Bridge, they parked the planes tail to tail at an airstrip in Vienna, Italy. Just like during the Cold War. So the Russians are still spying on us, and we're still spying on them, and our agents are still getting caught and being interrogated. Evidently that part of spying hasn't changed since the Berlin wall came down in 1989. This suggests to me that some of "the ideals of an older generation" are shared by the younger generation who spy for their country today, although perhaps not shared by certain film producers and script writers who are more interested in teaching James Bond how to be a better man and a kinder, gentler spy at the top of M's voice.

and trying not to be so chauvinistic.

It is not chauvinistic for a James Bond movie to be about a male lead who likes girls, pursues women, or who is liked by women. It is not chauvinistic for men and women to do love scenes in Bond movies. They do it in other movies. It wasn't until Barbara Broccoli gained creative control that mutual attraction between the sexes became a crime in Bond films. "I'll never forgive myself," chirps Gemma Arterton for sleeping with Bond in Quantum of Solace. Horse pucky! Whoever wrote the love scenes in the last couple of films probably -- , no I won't say it.

 

[Richard--W]

According to the L.A. Times, Daniel Craig may have walked away from the Bond franchise forever when he signed on to star in the American remake of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. First he must complete Cowboys and Aliens, and then The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo will tie him up until the end of 2011. So the next Bond film, assuming the problems with MGM are sorted out, couldn't start until 2012 if Craig stays on, which takes the actor well into his mid-forties. To add to the delays, Sam Mendes, who worked on the script and who was slated to direct, has started on another film entirely.


So if the problems with MGM are resolved this year or next year, the star is busy.


Further, the L.A. Times quotes an inside source who says that the delays caused by MGM and Craig's schedule are not the only problem. Five writers and the script isn't ready. There are creative differences between some of the writers and producers over the script, which sounds suspiciously like Barbara Broccoli is imposing her agenda again and this time the hired help balked. Read the latest report in the L.A. Times:


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-james-bond-20100806,0,6309958.story?track=rss

 

[Nelson Au]

Thought I'd step into this exchange a little late.


My opinion as a Bond fan is that I didn't care for either Craig's Bond films. And I also do not put Craig down for it.

From my point of view, I tried to look at Casino Royale objectively. I tried to put aside my reluctance to accept Craig in the role. For me, it goes beyond the idea that he had to fit a particular mold created by Sean Connery. It wasn't till 5 years ago that I actually spent a year or so and read every single Ian Fleming Bond novel. With the exception of the last novel because i can't find a vintage 1960's paperback copy.


Casino Royale was a well made and well acted film. I thought Bond was presented as an arrogant SOB in it too, which was the idea so we see him "grow up". The action was very potent, reminded me of Brosnan's debut in Goldeneye during the fight on the antenna. Though Brosnan's fight wasn't quite as brutal.


I think it might not be a bad idea to end the franchise. Too much competition today and it's not novel anymore. It's been copied over a lot of times. A new production team would be a good idea if they have to make more films. But the source material has all been used, unless they go with the new novels.


I just hope the blu rays will finish their releases!

 

[WinstonCely]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

I just hope the blu rays will finish their releases!

Me too! So far they are incredible.

 

[Rick Thompson]

When they dumped Brosnan as Bond so they could "reboot the franchise," I prepared for the worst. Casting Daniel Craig and the comments that followed just confirmed it. The new theory became James Bond as thug. Well, the cinematic Bond (and also Fleming's) is a sophisticated man of action. The films added the humor, which was conspicuously absent in Dalton and now Craig. Connery said as much about the Dalton films. "License to Kill" was a fine action picture, but it wasn't a Bond movie. "Casino" was the same. "Quantum" was a financially-successful dud. They tried to make Bond into an imitation Bourne -- and I'll take the real Bourne over an imitation any day!

 

[Malcolm R]

Things may be nearing a resolution, according to HitFix.com:

Spyglass Entertainment is nearing a deal to run MGM after the studio restructures approximately $4 billion in debt later this summer.


...this likely means Spyglass will quickly move forward with working out the co-financing on Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" and that a new James Bond film will be in production as early as next year.

 

[WinstonCely]

Originally Posted by Rick Thompson The films added the humor, which was conspicuously absent in Dalton...

License to Kill has some of the most inept, poorly written and poorly timed humor I've seen. Just watched it the other day on Blu-ray, and though there are still some OK moments, the film is horrendous. Now, Living Daylights was much lighter on the humor and infinitely better than LTK. In fact, watching LD recently, I almost wish they had kept Dalton because it was much more in line with the kind of Bond movie I want to see (which I also think Casino Royale was in line with).

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by DellaStMedia
Now, Living Daylights was much lighter on the humor and infinitely better than LTK. In fact, watching LD recently, I almost wish they had kept Dalton because it was much more in line with the kind of Bond movie I want to see (which I also think Casino Royale was in line with).

Agreed. Daylights is one of my favorite Bond films. I remember seeing it several times in the theater in 1987, so happy that Bond could once again be taken seriously, after the awful View To A Kill, and the broad comedy in Octopussy and Moonraker (both of which I liked despite that). License To Kill is far too grim for a Bond movie, and this idea that Bond's missions have to be personal is a failure. LTK plays like a generic 80s revenge thriller, not an installment in the Bond series.


I'm surprised to read all the dislike of Craig in the role. I thought Casino Royale was truly one of the best Bonds since From Russia With Love (my favorite and the standard of what the series should be IMO). Quantum wasn't as good, but still enjoyable. I've liked Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in the role, but Craig is the best since Connery (also the standard). I hope the Spyglass news turns out well for MGM so that we can get 007 back in action before long (and make EW print a retraction of that awful cover story).

 

[WinstonCely]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate
From Russia With Love (my favorite and the standard of what the series should be IMO). Quantum wasn't as good, but still enjoyable. I've liked Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in the role, but Craig is the best since Connery (also the standard). I hope the Spyglass news turns out well for MGM so that we can get 007 back in action before long (and make EW print a retraction of that awful cover story).

Same wavelength. From Russia With Love is one of THE best.

 

[Nelson Au]

Same here, I grew up on The Spy Who Loved Me and loved Goldfinger, but the Bond that's the best overall for me is also From Russia With Love. And is pretty faithful to the book.


I don't hate Craig. I just didn't like how his cinematic Bond is written and acted. He's not Bond to me and I know he was not supposed to be.


I was disappointed that Brosnan could not have gone out by doing Casino Royale. I can understand it's what the producers wanted. It would have have been interesting to have seen Brosnan do that film. I think he could have with the same level of seriousness and left out all the goofiness he had to do for Die Another Day. Of course, the film would not need all the parts done to show him attain 00 status. Craig did a great job in the torture scene, not sure how Brosnan would have done it.


And I also wondered how great On Her Majesty's Secret Service could have been with Connery. But as it is, I think Lazenby did a great job and it's one of my favorites. And if Connery had done it, it would have been tailored for him, so it might not be the same!

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au And I also wondered how great On Her Majesty's Secret Service could have been with Connery. But as it is, I think Lazenby did a great job and it's one of my favorites. And if Connery had done it, it would have been tailored for him, so it might not be the same!

Nothing against George Lazenby or OHMSS, which is a great film, but I have always said that if Connery had made that movie, it would be the best in the series.

 

 

[Nelson Au]

Agreed! Right up there with From Russia With Love. It's ironic that Connery left partly due to the excessive use of gadgets, if I'm not mistaken. So OHMSS would have been what he wanted, but I guess other issues contributed to his desire to move on.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate




Nothing against George Lazenby or OHMSS, which is a great film, but I have always said that if Connery had made that movie, it would be the best in the series.

Â

Have to disagree 100%. It works because it is not Connery's Bond. If you look at all of Connery's Bond films, his version would never fall in love. He uses women and doesn't care for them in any romantic way. He either beds them to get what he wants or smacks them around if that doesn't work. Lazenby's Bond is a bit less "professional" and more emotional/action oriented and it works great in OHMSS. I am disappointed they fired Lazenby immediately and I think he would have been a better choice for Diamonds Are Forever instead of a very aging Connery, just like Moore was in A View to a Kill. Both went one film too many and dumping Brosnan for Casino Royale was probably for the best or we would have yet another Bond that went one film too many. I will agree that Connery was a superior actor to Lazenby but I think if they had given him a chance to improve he would have become good enough.

 

[Gary Seven]

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey
...instead of a very aging Connery, just like Moore was in A View to a Kill.
 

Ironically, Moore is older than Connery.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I agree it is ironic but Roger Moore looked much better through his 50's. Later though I think Sean Connery looked much better for his age.

 

[Richard--W]

 

Originally Posted by Sam Favate 90#post_3719161
Nothing against George Lazenby or OHMSS, which is a great film, but I have always said that if Connery had made that movie, it would be the best in the series.

 

 

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey
Have to disagree 100%. It works because it is not Connery's Bond. If you look at all of Connery's Bond films, his version would never fall in love. He uses women and doesn't care for them in any romantic way. He either beds them to get what he wants or smacks them around if that doesn't work. Lazenby's Bond is a bit less "professional" and more emotional/action oriented and it works great in OHMSS. I am disappointed they fired Lazenby immediately and I think he would have been a better choice for Diamonds Are Forever instead of a very aging Connery, just like Moore was in A View to a Kill. Both went one film too many and dumping Brosnan for Casino Royale was probably for the best or we would have yet another Bond that went one film too many. I will agree that Connery was a superior actor to Lazenby but I think if they had given him a chance to improve he would have become good enough.

Connery could have nailed that part and would have. After Thunderball, Connery thought he would be doing On Her Majesty's Secret Service next. It was announced at end of Thunderball: "James Bond will return in On Her Majesty's Service." But snow failed to materialize in the Alps, and they couldn't shoot OHMSS without it. EON had to come up with something to fulfill their commitments for that season, so Roald Dahl scrambled together a red-headed-stepchild version of You Only Live Twice that bore no relation to the source except in title.

 

After Ian Fleming met Sean Connery on the set of Dr. No in 1961, and adjusted to seeing him as Bond in the film, and then met with him again on the set of From Russia With Love, Fleming wrote the next three books for the actor. I've always wondered what Connery and Fleming said to each other. Whatever it was, there is a big change in Fleming's writing after he meets Connery. The novels become more personal with gut-wrenching character development for Bond. Fleming even sprinkled details of Connery's background into the character in the novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Fleming wrote OHMSS (published in 1963), You Only Live Twice (published in 1964) and Man With the Golden Gun (published in 1965, posthumously) with Connery in mind. These three books represent what Fleming would like to have seen Connery do as Bond. Like any other professional actor, Connery would have risen to the occasion if circumstances had not prevented it.

 

To say that Connery's Bond beds women or smacks them around to get what he wants and doesn't care for them in any other way is simply not accurate. There are examples of Bond's compassion and caring for the women in each film. Connery is a subtle actor who just doesn't make a point that he's making a point out of it.