Bond 23 is On Hold Until MGM Figures Out Money Problems
by Alex Billington
January 4, 2010
As a lifelong die-hard James Bond fan, I always hate reporting this kind of news, especially when this latest Daniel Craig version of Bond has been so successful. But alas I'm only the messenger and there's nothing I can really do. When we first reported that MGM was having financial issues last September, James Bond was highlighted as one of their key franchises - "the studio doesn't think it can stay alive without 007." Then we heard in December from screenwriter Peter Morgan that the sequel was on hold. MI6 confirmed with producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli that Bond 23 is indeed on hold for the time being.
"Well, 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."
So Bond 23 is "uncertain"? That's not good at all! MGM is supposed to have an update in the next few weeks, whether it be more financing or a takeover or a sale, so we should know more soon. And I'm sure as soon as they figure out what's going on (or sell to new owners), they'll put Bond 23 back in action. Morgan said that he's finished with the script and everything seems to be ready to go, it's just a matter of getting greenlit early enough to make a late 2011 release. Speaking of the story, Wilson says it's not as far along as we may think.
"Well… we've hired the writers and we've been working with them but it's just too early to say anything," he said. "You know, often at this stage, I find myself saying, 'Oh, we're gonna do this and that', then six months from now you'll say, 'That isn't in the film at all - you told me it was…' I think we're at the stage where a lot of ideas are floating around that sound very good, but whether they make the final cut, who knows?"
Very interesting statements. Let's hope the "shocking story" that Peter Morgan talked about last year is still intact, because I think that kind of story could really re-energize the Bond franchise once again (coming off of Quantum of Solace). Not that it needs anything like that, it just needs money and a greenlight as well as a good director and I'm sure it'll be as big of a success as its always been previously. As I said at the beginning, as a die-hard Bond fan, I'm just anxious to see the next one as soon as possible. As long as it starts shooting by early 2011 (which is still reportedly the case), they'll get the next one out on time. Are you concerned?
Quantam of Solace was a big fucking cock-ass let down. Too short. Locations were nice but the movie wasnt as good as Casino Royale. The 3rd Bond film of Craig better sucks good titties or kiss it goodbye.
Rick James on Jan 4, 2010
I liked Quantum of Solace, but on par with Casino Royal it fell short, but I'm anticipating Bond 23, I think Craig can still pull it off.
Xerxex on Jan 4, 2010
i'm not sure more bond films are needed. i think 22 is enough.
beavis on Jan 4, 2010
#1 Rick James put it quite eloquently. I agree.
Mr.Mr. on Jan 4, 2010
Bond 22 SUCKED! If they actually SHOW US THE ACTION and....WRITE A STORY then im all for it. But if not this is all ment to be
Movie mike on Jan 4, 2010
Considering every Bond film still makes hundreds of millions of dollars every time a new one releases we will still have Bond movies coming out every few years. While this situation is concerning, the Bond franchise is a freaken cash cow. If the franchise does go up for sale I would not be surprised to see numerous studios trying to get it. One the subject of Quantum of Solace, I quite enjoyed it, but for completely different reasons that make me like Casino Royale. It's a very suitable epilogue to Casino Royale, but as a standalone...not so much.
Elgo on Jan 4, 2010
i wouldnt be concerned at all if christopher nolan gets attached to bond 23.......... who knows? He is a big james bond fan after all..............
bob saget on Jan 4, 2010
Yes I'm concerned. I was concerned when it was announced that Marc Forster was directing Quantum. Seriously? Forster? Forster is not known for action. Stick with "Monster's Ball","Finding Neverland","Kite Runner" Marc. You're a storyline man, not an action man (Even though Kite was ok, but I loved "Stranger Than Fiction") If they can't get a better director than Forster, than get Martin Campbell to come back. Campbell's directed Goldeneye and a couple of Zorro films, plus Casino. He's brought the best Bond to the screen in years. Hire the same writers. They did well with Casino and Quantum. Forster was the reason Quantum lost its luster. I'd honestly give David Yates from the last few Harry Potter films a shot. He is great at building tension, creating simple yet attention grabbing action, and adding a bit of acting into people who can't act (Although Craig can act).
Quanah on Jan 4, 2010
to address what the post is really about... MGM is waiting to get their finances in order before shooting bond 23 - A.K.A. waiting until The Hobbit is released and rapes. No problem.
Nick on Jan 5, 2010
This had to be anticipated.
d1rEct on Jan 5, 2010
Bond sucks ass! If there is gonna be another movie, then kill him off already!
guh on Jan 5, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:
Add our posts to your Feedly › click here
Get all the news sent on Telegram
LATEST TO WATCH