Bond 23 on hold due to MGM sale

[Captain Craig]

With the impeding sale of MGM this was to be expected.

Bond 23 on hold

Unsurprisingly it seems that due to issues with MGM Studios' impending sale, production on the 23rd James Bond film has been put on hold reports MI6.
Producer Michael G. Wilson tells Total Film Magazine that "our timeline's a little up in the air what with the situation at MGM, so we have to be flexible. We just don't know enough about the situation to comment, but we know it's uncertain."
The news comes not long after comments by writer Peter Morgan, who is working on the film's script, indicated that a delay was inevitable. MGM expects the first takeover bids to be submitted within the next few weeks.
The concern here is a repetition of the legal mess back in 1989 which ended up putting the franchise on ice for six years before the Pierce Brosnan-led "Goldeneye" in 1995 revived the series both critically and commercially.

Or it might be a blessing in disguise(re: bolded text) if your like me and not overly impressed with the Daniel Craig outings as Bond. Craig is a great actor, he's just not Bond and frankly the Bond movies haven't been Bond either, just Bourne-esque.

If it takes a few years to get the real cinematic Bond back then so be it I say.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Except that won't happen. They're happy with Craig as Bond, as well they should be - most of the pre-Craig Bond movies produced since the early 1970s simply sucked.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Except that won't happen. They're happy with Craig as Bond, as well they should be - most of the pre-Craig Bond movies produced since the early 1970s simply sucked.

For the most part I agree.

I'm very happy with Craig, I thought Casino Royale was great, Solace, however, was a little slow for me and not as compelling.

That said, I like this new version of Bond.

 

[John Picard]

With the impeding sale of MGM this was to be expected.

Bond 23 on hold

Unsurprisingly it seems that due to issues with MGM Studios' impending sale, production on the 23rd James Bond film has been put on hold reports MI6.
Producer Michael G. Wilson tells Total Film Magazine that "our timeline's a little up in the air what with the situation at MGM, so we have to be flexible. We just don't know enough about the situation to comment, but we know it's uncertain."
The news comes not long after comments by writer Peter Morgan, who is working on the film's script, indicated that a delay was inevitable. MGM expects the first takeover bids to be submitted within the next few weeks.
The concern here is a repetition of the legal mess back in 1989 which ended up putting the franchise on ice for six years before the Pierce Brosnan-led "Goldeneye" in 1995 revived the series both critically and commercially.

Or it might be a blessing in disguise(re: bolded text) if your like me and not overly impressed with the Daniel Craig outings as Bond. Craig is a great actor, he's just not Bond and frankly the Bond movies haven't been Bond either, just Bourne-esque.

If it takes a few years to get the real cinematic Bond back then so be it I say.

WRONG. Read the books. The James bond from Roger Moore and onward was not the Bond of the books. Go back and read the original Casino Royale and you'll see. Bond became a complete farce with the stupid one-liners and was overladen with gadgets.

If anything, Bourne copied Bond, and Craig is fantastic, being Bond as Bond was in the books.

 

[JacksonArcher]

This information isn't really new. Like the article mentions, Peter Morgan basically said the same thing weeks ago. I really doubt that this delay (which is basically just the studio getting sold -- and not the rights issues that the franchise dealt with all those years ago) will result in a new Bond and a new creative direction. Craig is contracted for at least four or five films and the producers have issued every intent on continuing with Craig as Bond. Quantum of Solace might have had mixed reactions critically, but it was a financial success so I really don't see how this means we might see a change of pace.

 

[Pingfah]

I'm very happy with Craig, I thought Casino Royale was great, Solace, however, was a little slow for me and not as compelling.

I seem to remember it being one long action scene, I didn't find it slow. But I also didn't find it compelling.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Agreed. I like Craig's Bond--and we could see in Casino and Quantum that he is slowly-but-surely growing into the "sophisticated" gentleman-spy we know and love....

It'll take a while, though.

I'm glad they're working on a script. Looking forward to it, when it comes out.

 

[Hermiod]

Both Craig movies have been pretty bad so far. Casino Royale because, for some reason someone inserted an entire reel from a different movie - some sort of period drama about some bloke in a wheelchair.

Quantum of Solace because it's just a series of nonsensical explosions.

Hopefully a delay will mean that they can rethink who James Bond is supposed to be and stop rejecting the things that made the early movies so popular.

 

[Aragorn]

If enough time passes between movies, Craig might bail.

 

[Hermiod]

If enough time passes between movies, Craig might bail.

While I'm not going to lay the blame for my dislike of the last two movies at Craig's door, that might not be such a bad thing.

 

[JacksonArcher]

If enough time passes between movies, Craig might bail.

I doubt that's going to happen. If this sale takes anywhere longer than a year or so, you might have a case.

 

[John Picard]

Both Craig movies have been pretty bad so far. Casino Royale because, for some reason someone inserted an entire reel from a different movie - some sort of period drama about some bloke in a wheelchair.

Yet another who hasn't read the original story

 

[Kegg]

I disagree with Craig, Craig is great.

...why am I the first person to make this all too obvious quip?

Anyway, Casino Royale is the best Bond movie I've seen, easily. It's just a lot of cool fun and panache on a level none of the other flicks really grabbed me, but then I was always a casual fan at best. Quantum of Solace was a rather forgettable misfire, though. Here's hoping movie three finds its legs, and keeps Craig around for that matter.

 

[Hermiod]

Both Craig movies have been pretty bad so far. Casino Royale because, for some reason someone inserted an entire reel from a different movie - some sort of period drama about some bloke in a wheelchair.

Yet another who hasn't read the original story

I don't give a flying frak about the original story. Books are not movies and movies are not books. A story that works well on the page does not necessarily work well on the big screen.

 

[sidious618]

Craig will stay. He's been the best recieved Bond since Connery critics wise and his performance is always praised. Sorry, this won't be causing anyone to rethink the franchise.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I disagree with Craig, Craig is great.

...why am I the first person to make this all too obvious quip?

You put us all to shame, Kegg.

 

[John Picard]

Both Craig movies have been pretty bad so far. Casino Royale because, for some reason someone inserted an entire reel from a different movie - some sort of period drama about some bloke in a wheelchair.

Yet another who hasn't read the original story

I don't give a flying frak about the original story. Books are not movies and movies are not books. A story that works well on the page does not necessarily work well on the big screen.

Based on your comments, you're the kind who thinks a movie sucks if there isn't a plethora of shootouts, lazer battles, or car chases. God forbid there be any exploration of the human element as well as character development.

 

[Hermiod]

Based on your comments, you're the kind who thinks a movie sucks if there isn't a plethora of shootouts, lazer battles, or car chases. God forbid there be any exploration of the human element as well as character development.

You really don't know me very well at all, then, given that my primary criticism of QoS which you edited out of the post you quoted was that it was just a series of explosions with no character development.

You simply fail to understand the concept of pacing. The scenes in question simply went on for too long. Once we had established that Bond had fallen for Vesper, which we could gather from the first few minutes, the rest was redundant.

It certainly did not help that Eva Green was not up to the acting challenge either.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Yet another who hasn't read the original story

I don't give a flying frak about the original story. Books are not movies and movies are not books. A story that works well on the page does not necessarily work well on the big screen.

Based on your comments, you're the kind who thinks a movie sucks if there isn't a plethora of shootouts, lazer battles, or car chases. God forbid there be any exploration of the human element as well as character development.

Agreed. Obviously Fleming's original works translated well to the big screen or James Bond would not have been the phenomenon that it is today.

 

[Hermiod]

Agreed. Obviously Fleming's original works translated well to the big screen or James Bond would not have been the phenomenon that it is today.

Interesting, therefore, that this particular story did not make it to the screen in anything like its original form for 53 years.