Bond 23 - Skyfall (2012) [Contains spoilers!]

[ccbaxter]

Dear oh dear Hollywood being thickos again. Craig's two movies were brilliant Bond films and exactly what was called for after the excesses of DAD. I wasn't too keen on the casting of Craig but 30 minutes into CR and he owned the role completely, All credit to Eon prodcutions as they sought to revitalise a clearly flagging franchise by going back to the straighter style of DN & FRWL but bringing in the production style of the Bourne movies. Tis a pity and to think there may not be a Bond film for a while but some pile of shite with Jack Black or Ben Stiller will get made.

[Wee Little Puppet Man]

Originally Posted by Space Cadet

It's worth reading the Bourne Supremacy too, puppet man, but again very different to the movie. I spent half the movie waiting for a fairly major plot development from the book - and it never materialised! I felt like they'd only made part of the story! But as far as the films go, they're top notch - I'd just rather the Bond franchise hadn't gone down the same route.

There's room for both, just as you say.

I plan on getting round to the rest of the books at some point.

Originally Posted by RetroEnzo

I like Bond, and I like Bourne. But when I watch a Bond film, I want a Bond film. CR and QoS (Question of Sport?) were not Bond films...

I've gotta disagree with you there. If you've read Ian Fleming's Casino Royale and seen the film you'd see how much of an effort it was in trying to adapt it for the screen. Even though the first hour or so of the film is new, along with the last act in Venice, the middle of the film retains the essence of the book itself. Namely who Bond is and why he is who he is, as well as the game with Le Chiffre and his relationship with Vesper. For all its faults QOS did try to continue that as part 2 of how Bond becomes the Bond that we all know him as. It's just a shame that it got a bit lost amongst a rubbish plot.

But I hope the producers stick with the current direction and we get a better script next time and I hope that Craig returns as he's now my favourite Bond.

[The Yeti]

I can't help but think that all this is just a bargaining tactic by Broccoli/Eon.

Basically, MGM needs Bond far more than Eon needs MGM.
Look at it this way ... Eon wants to get on and make the next film, but MGM are dragging on stumping up the cash. Eon can't go to anyone else for the cash because of legal agreements, so Eon says Bond is dead (temporarily), which is something they do have power over.

Now one of two things will happen ... either :
#1. MGM (or its backers) will quite quickly find some money and things get moving again. Why ? Because Bond is one of the few things MGM can virtually guarantee to make a big profit for them. If they don't back a Bond movie, then their financial position is even more perilous. They need to back the Sure Bets if they want even a hope in hells chance of surviving.

If they don't stump up then ...
#2. The MGM backers will get even more nervous and MGM will go down the plughole quicker. This helps Eon, because they can now either buy back the rights to hawk Bond to someone else, or someone else will pick over MGM's carcass, and grab the Bond contract, and now Eon gets someone with money to fund the next film (cf Halcyon and Terminator 5).

Either way, Eon win.

If #2, I don't know why Eon just don't buy it back and make it themselves outside the studio system. They aren't exactly poor, and I'm sure there's plenty of independent backers to get money from if needed. The next Bond is almost guaranteed to make money.

[Big Orange]

Pretty bad news for the Bond franchise, it could put it on a significant hiatus similar to the ones that followed Licence to Kill and Die Another Day. Quantum of Solace was clearly not as good as Casino Royale, though I still think it gets criticized a little too heavily (it was still loads better than Die Another Day). Either way both Craig movies were successful in the box office and in DVD sales, which insinuates how dire things are at MGM, although this could be a ploy by EON awaiting the demise of MGM who hold the rights to franchise.

[James Ormiston]

I'm no movie financing expert, but you'd think that MGM would be able to borrow the money for this and The Hobbit, pretty safe in the knowledge that they'd make shedloads of money and help to get them out of their current situation. Or couldn't they lease out the Bond license (havent they done that before?)

[kahless]

I cant find any links for this but heard on the radio this morning that apparently Sam Worthington has been approached to play Bond even though production on any film has been halted.

Sounds like someone upping their client seeing Mr. Worthington seems to be starring in every film to be made in the next couple of years.

[nin_o_negative]

Sam Worthington's name is brought up all the time for everything. Last time I checked he was up for the On the Buses remake.

I can't see the hiatus lasting long. I'm hoping it is some sort of sneaky scare tactic to get interest from financiers or other studios. No way are they going to risk having the Bond franchise go cold again. I can't remember what article it was or if it was on this forum, but I read that the Broccolli's want to work with Craig on an adaptation of a play he's recently done while waiting for the next Bond.

[deGooder]

Originally Posted by James Ormiston

I'm no movie financing expert, but you'd think that MGM would be able to borrow the money for this and The Hobbit, pretty safe in the knowledge that they'd make shedloads of money and help to get them out of their current situation. Or couldn't they lease out the Bond license (havent they done that before?)

But is you did that and the film tanked you'd be in all kinds of trouble. Bond may be a decent bet but there is no such thing as a sure bet in the film industry. All it takes is bad word of mouth and revenues drop sharply or even something totally out of you control (a number of films performed poorly as they were out after Di's death)

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by James Ormiston

I'm no movie financing expert, but you'd think that MGM would be able to borrow the money for this and The Hobbit, pretty safe in the knowledge that they'd make shedloads of money and help to get them out of their current situation. Or couldn't they lease out the Bond license (havent they done that before?)

That's MGM's problem, they've borrowed too much money already and can't afford their loan payments so now they can't get any as the creditors are demanding repayment. So any money tha comes from the profits of Bond and Hobbit are already owed to a huge line of people already wanting money and the new creditors would be right at the back

[badhat-h]

if m.g.m had greenlit 'bond 23' early last year it would have been lifeline for them and guarenteed money maker to offset losses on 'pink panther 2' and 'fame' reboot.