Next James Bond Film slated for 2012

[TymerDC]

Thought you Bond boys might like this article I found amidst MGMs financial problems :

Next James Bond Slated for November 2012


In the midst of complicated financial restructuring following their bankruptcy claim, MGM has issued plans for the future of their flagship James Bond franchise.

The next, currently-untitled, Bond film is planned for November 2012 and claims that sequels will follow every other year.

The 23rd entry in the franchise, the film was originally set to star returning actor Daniel Craig as Bond with Sam Mendes attached to direct. Though it is very likely that Craig will still return, there is not yet a confirmation of Mendes' continued involvement.

 

[thegreatgalling]

:thumbsup Sweet! Thanks for the heads up. I knew they would never let Bond fizzle, here is to a great script and all the right pieces coming together.

 

[thegreatgalling]

This article implies MGM may have been too fast to pull the trigger on the news:

‘Bond 23’ May Not Be Quite Ready For A November 2012 Release > The Playlist

Craig's schedule is def. bloated with three Millenium series movies contracted for, and other projects to boot. I really hope we don't have to wait until 2014.

 

[0neiros]

I Like Craig as Bond, but what we need is a guy that would dedicate himself to the character, with a firm contract of 5 films to be released every other year. That'd be 10 years, and then open negotiate per film beyond that if he still looks good enough for the role, and felt like continuing on, so we don't get Roger Moore syndrome. And definitely keep Bond Edgy and more true to the books with a Few realistic Gadgets, not Watches with Frikkin Laser Beams, and Invisible cars.

 

[SVTStingRay]

Bond without gadgets is like star wars without lightsabers, or star trek without starships

 

[darthgordon]

I like more realistic gadgets myself. The recent Batman movie had a Bond feel to it.

I don't like the idea of doing a movie every other year. That'll result in lower budgets and franchise fatigue.

 

[micdavis]

Both the James Bourne movies are like watching Penny episodes of Lost in Space.

 

[yt]

Great, just in time for the end of the world! We are never gonna get another bond movie.

 

[Larry Young]

Both the James Bourne movies are like watching Penny episodes of Lost in Space.

You silver-tongued devil, you. This is one of your better ones.

 

[TheDoctor]

I Like Craig as Bond, but what we need is a guy that would dedicate himself to the character, with a firm contract of 5 films to be released every other year. That'd be 10 years, and then open negotiate per film beyond that if he still looks good enough for the role, and felt like continuing on, so we don't get Roger Moore syndrome. And definitely keep Bond Edgy and more true to the books with a Few realistic Gadgets, not Watches with Frikkin Laser Beams, and Invisible cars.

Craig, if I recall, was pretty open with MGM on doing Bond movies until the recent fiasco. He had contracted to do 5 Bond movies. The problem is that, if the studio can't pay you, you can't dedicate yourself to that role unless you want to kill your career.

There's a very real danger, especially for someone like Craig, to get typecast. If he, or any other actor, spends 10 years doing nothing but playing Bond, that's all he'll ever do.

I don't think he accepted the Millennium movies until after the MGM thing went belly-up. For a long time, there wasn't a guarantee that there WOULD be another Bond movie. If the rights went to another studio, they probably wouldn't pick up Craig, and would want to 'remake' Bond in their own vision. Even if they did retain Craig, it would be another 5 years while money/rights exchange hands, they get someone to write scripts, create a vision, etc. before they actually start filming.

 

[TheDoctor]

Great, just in time for the end of the world! We are never gonna get another bond movie.

We're also getting a new Trek movie, so talk about the world ending with a bang!

 

[TheDoctor]

I like more realistic gadgets myself. The recent Batman movie had a Bond feel to it.

I don't like the idea of doing a movie every other year. That'll result in lower budgets and franchise fatigue.

At first I was skeptical, but the new "more realistic" gadgets do make the films more enjoyable. Bond has to be more resourceful and more spy-like. And if you're really in it for the gadgets, there's still plenty of them available. A super-high resolution 3-D cell phone that can take pictures from a mile away? I'd sooner believe the invisible car! :lol

As for the franchise fatigue, I disagree. I think that doing movies in pairs (say film two movies and release them 4-6 months apart), as long as they're related, would be a good play. Then wait another 3-4 years for another pair.

I donno. Personally speaking, if I had my way, there'd be a new Bond movie in the theater every 2 months!!

 

[darthgordon]

As for the franchise fatigue, I disagree. I think that doing movies in pairs (say film two movies and release them 4-6 months apart), as long as they're related, would be a good play. Then wait another 3-4 years for another pair.

I donno. Personally speaking, if I had my way, there'd be a new Bond movie in the theater every 2 months!!

That's what I said about Star Trek after First Contact... then look what we got.

My theory is that when a studio goes to a writer or two and says they want them to make a certain franchise movie, they are nothing compared to an actual inspired script.

Then there's the issue with every movie trying one up the other. That's why the gadgets would often got more and more extreme with each movie. Situations start to get further and further out there from reality.

There's the problem with always trying to do something new rather than a rehash of what came before. Eventually, you start changing the formula and character(s) you've loved just so the audience and actors don't get bored.

Then every few years, they just reboot it.

 

[Wakeem]

I wonder what the producers plan is? Do they understand that a lot of people thought Quantum was bad and almost a Brosnan style Bond film compared to Casino Royale. Can they get good enough stories to do a run of films every other year without them getting worse and worse.

 

[thegreatgalling]

I Like Craig as Bond, but what we need is a guy that would dedicate himself to the character, with a firm contract of 5 films to be released every other year. That'd be 10 years, and then open negotiate per film beyond that if he still looks good enough for the role, and felt like continuing on, so we don't get Roger Moore syndrome. And definitely keep Bond Edgy and more true to the books with a Few realistic Gadgets, not Watches with Frikkin Laser Beams, and Invisible cars.

FTW. 3 to 4 year gaps are treacherous and ultimately, they affect the story lines. No one benefits from Bond aging too quickly and not given enough time to grow in his skin.

I can see Craig's thought process. Sure, he is Bond and it put him on the map. By doing other things, he is ensuring he escapes the image and proves himself as a leading actor. I also don't expect him to sit around for MGM's lawyers to figure out what the hay is happening to the company. But then again, he chose to wear the tuxedo. He is part of something much bigger than he is whether he likes it or not and as far as fans are concerned, Bond should be first. Either make it the priority while your in contract or hang up the PPK.

Ideally, they work it out and get out a film in 2012. Bond is still very much relevant.

Finally, I would be OK with trading gadgets for a focus on ingenuity. Sure, we don't need MacGyver, James MacGyver, but I want to see a Bond who can think with more than his fists and use his surroundings to get out of a jam.

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, basically, watch Dr. No. Bond doesn't need gadgets, but he's plenty resourceful. He doesn't need a 5 min scene with Q where he's given a laser-recorder that lets him know when someone's rifled through his stuff. He just plucks a hair from his head, licks it, and sticks it to the door. If the hair's gone when he comes back, he knows someone came in. The escape sequence in that film is similarly ingenious. THAT'S the Bond I want to see -- a Bond who's both tough and resourceful, not some fop with toys, and not just some sullen brute who may or may not know kung fu but you can't really tell because the action sequences are friggin' incomprehensible.

Whatever they do with the 2012 or 2013 or 2014 movies or whatever, FIRE THE EDITOR FROM QUANTUM. Or at least cut down on his sugar intake.

 

[thegreatgalling]

^ That scene in Dr. No is a perfect example Solo. Subtle, yet genius!

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, I went back and rewatched it a few years ago, after having read the original Fleming novels, and was just blown away by it. Dr. No is a much slower paced film, but the kind of stuff Bond does in that film is what I'm lookign for. I recognize that there will be SOME gadgetry, but I'd prefer it not to be invisible cars and rocket-launching pocketwatches and such. I found all of that really robbed Bond of any heroism because any schmo who'd been given a "Plot device escape button" at the start of the movie could get out of it.

Like, how impressive is it when Q gives Bond shark repellent in scene 4, and Bond then uses said shark repellent in scene 26? Oh gee. Didn't see THAT one coming, did we?

And then there was the invisible car. THE INVISIBLE FREAKING CAR!!!!!!

 

[thegreatgalling]

I want to see Bond run in and out of five City buses to elude someone following in the shadows, a Bond who asks to see the other matching half of a playing card to insure who he talking to is actually his ally. I want to see Bond mail
MI6 a message written on the back of a postage stamp, and a Bond who can hatch a genius plan to escape custody that doesn't only involve shooting.

The only thing Bond writers need to do is actually LOOK into Cold War espionage, there are too many examples to list. Bond is not only Chuck Norris in a tux. He needs to win on wits.

 

[Solo4114]

Well, to be fair, Bond in the books is a bit of a bruiser. He is, fundamentally, a contract killer (or at least can be), crossed with a detective. And he's very very good at what he does, and is conflicted about that fact.

He is, however, also incredibly tough and resourceful. Also, his taste for the good life is a means to block out the really awful stuff he has to do. And the girls he gets involved with (after Vesper), he frequently actually becomes attached to...and carries around bitter disappointment with him at the failure of those relationships (through their death, loss of interest in him, or his job making a real life impossible). It's one of the things that makes his marriage to (and subsequent loss of) Tracy such a big deal.

To me, Casino Royale got ALL of that right. It mixed in action, too, but Bond was smart, tough, resourceful, emotional, and vulnerable all at once. Quantum was just incomprehensible fight sequences mixed with him walking around looking grim. (The exceptions being his friend's death and the scene with Vesper's ex.)

I want more like Casino Royale. I don't care if they have gadgets, and I'm less interested in the fight sequences.


thegreatgalling, I think what you want (which I'd love to see too, by the way) is not really possible in the Bond universe anymore, given that the Cold War is over. I would, however, LOVE to see some Cold War espionage films done.