James Bond 23 may soon see the light of day
"Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. ('MGM') today announced that the secured lenders voting in the Company's solicitation process have overwhelmingly approved its proposed plan of reorganization ('Plan'). MGM will now move expeditiously to implement that Plan, which will dramatically reduce its debt load and put the Company in a strong position to execute its business strategy. MGM is appreciative of the lenders' support."
It has been speculated by varying sources that with MGM back up and running, Sony Entertainment, the company that distributed the last two 007 adventures Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, will announce their take over of the franchise. Deadline, on the other hand, tend to believe that James Bond 23 may go to Paramount, as they have a very close relationship with Spyglass and are currently working with them to produce Star Trek 2.
James Bond 23 may still be quite a ways away from actually happening, as star Daniel Craig is commited to three chapters in the Millennium Trilogy, starting with the currently in-production The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. There is currently no talk of hiring someone else to play James Bond, but if Craig is to reprise the role a third time, we still won't see James Bond 23 until 2014 at the earliest.
Skyfall comes to theaters November 9th, 2012 and stars Ralph Fiennes, Daniel Craig, Helen McCrory, Javier Bardem, Tonia Sotiropoulou, Bérénice Marlohe, Judi Dench, Naomie Harris. The film is directed by Sam Mendes.
Comments (113)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Lane
I can agree with you on that @Josh. :)
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
Josh
Nice summation, @Lane1. Part of what I love so much about this "new" bond is the psychological complexity they've given to the character. It makes Bond interesting on more than a pure "action movie" level.
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
Lane
You're welcome! :D
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
CBF
@Lane1: It does, it really does, Lane. And I totally get what you are saying. Thanks for putting it in perspective for me. :)
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Lane
I hope that helps crack the shell of your little peanut brain. :P
lmfao
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
Lane
@CBF: Well, if you look at it from a logical point of view, I think it has more to do with Bond just wanting to know the truth about what happened, and that despite the fact he was bitter, he understood why Vesper had to do what she did because of having been manipulated. In that sense, I think Bond is smart enough to realize that she didn't really have too many options and with Vesper being his first love (or one of the few he did love?), regardless of his negative feelings toward her, it could never change the way he felt about her before she used him, and ultimately, before she died.
You have to remember that love is complicated and seeing all the emotions he went through before her death, before and after finding out what she was doing, and his feelings about it after her death, don't you think that was a lot for him to deal with all at one time? I mean, even for a man who's emotions are infinitely more complex than others, after everything that came at him as fast as it did, I think James just wanted some closure. Because simply knowing what she did, that she wronged him, but that she did it because she had no other choice just to watch her die afterward wasn't enough. Bond knew that Vesper loved him, and that someone was going to have to pay for her death.
That sounds really cheesy, I know. lol, but you get what I'm saying. That, to me, is why I think the sequel worked so well. You can't truly have full closure until every party involved has been brought to justice... And if anyone knows how to bring em' to it, its Bond. ;)
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
CBF
@Lane1 Yeah that's what happened in the book, too, although I think it was the other agency that manipulated her. But here's a new question: if Bond felt bitter about it even after learning that, and didn't care, and felt hatred towards women after that, then it stands to reason that he would not go on a vengeful revenge trip to avenge her. Am I right? Since you enjoyed QoS and understand it better than I do. That is one Bond film I cannot wrap my peanut little brain around. lmao
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Ryan Moran
i wish it was not inches i wish it was happing
2 years agoby @nightwing18Flag
I AM FRATSON
Even tho QOS had its flaws, I still enjoyed the movie for what it was. I personally love Craig as Bond. Im glad to see some news regarding this.
2 years agoby @iamfratsonFlag
Lane
*relationships
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
Lane
@CBF: You're welcome. And I think @killerman200 is right. Vesper was technically redeemed in Casino Royale because it was M or someone who told Bond she had been used by her boyfriend and that's when Bond responded "Doesn't matter now, the bitch is dead." But despite knowing that fact about Vesper, Bond was still bitter about what had happened, hence why he had that hatred toward women (or rather, why he didn't have serious realtionships with them). And then we see him "turn" into Bond after that.
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
CBF
OMG Thank you @ejk1. See I thought so.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
ejk1
But there is continuity in the Bond films. In The Spy Who Loved Me, Agent XXX was about to mention Teresa Bond when James stopped her short. And in For You Eyes only, the movie began at the grave of Teresa, and included Blofeld. The continuity was always there, but once Blofeld died, SPECTRE ceased to exist(actually, Spectre really ended in You Only Live Twice. Once we found out who Blofeld was, Spectre was not mentioned a lot, if at all, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever). Smersh obviously was no longer used because the USSR collapsed. Bond has always had continuity up until Casino Royale, as Bond remained a static character in the changing dynamic world.
2 years agoby @ejk1Flag
Dan
100.
@Cyn :p yep..
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
Cyn
@TheRealSUPES. Um, YEAH you do.
2 years agoby @cyn-de-harvenFlag
Daveactor7
@CBF no problem man
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
3080
killerman200, the only reason Dalton was able to walk away is because his contract had expired. He briefly attempted to negotiate a new one, but ultimately decided to just pass the mantle on.
EON's standard offer was the same for Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig: 3 films in a 7 year period. It doesn't seem likely that they'll want to wait 6 years just to make 1 more film with Craig. Nor does it seem likely that Craig will want to negotiate a new contract that commits him to making Bond sequels until he's almost 50. (It's not like anyone expects Craig to be the final actor to play James Bond. Eventually, there will be a 7th official Bond and it will no doubt happen whenever it's convenient for the producers- rather than the fans.)
As for Bond's timeline, there's a few loose threads of continuity throughout the films preceding Casino Royale. For example, Lazenby and Brosnan both encounter gadgets from Connery's films, while Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan all have references (both direct and indirect) to Tracy's death.
2 years agoby @3080Flag
CBF
@Lane1 Thanks :)
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Dan
Man, you guys are passionate about Bond. When I go to a Bond movie, I'm looking for the gadgets, the outrageous villain and Bond girls with sexual names, if he's gonna bed them all lol, and that PPK (is that what it was?) with silencer. I'm a simple guy :)
Seriously need to rewatch all the old ones and get informed on SPECTRE and all that.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
Lane
Not a problem, CBF. I was going to keep responding, but since you're a smart enough guy to think for yourself, I guess I don't need to. :)
Still, never hurts to get all those different points of views out there.
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
CBF
Right Spectre was that organization of baddies, but I definitely need to rewatch some Bonds... It's been too long I've forgotten what happened.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
killerman200
SMERSH was over. But all the members of Spectre weren't killed. And Spectre wasn't an agency.
2 years agoby @killerman200Flag
CBF
Thanks for the responses, @Lane1 @Daveactor7 @killerman200
Definitely making me rethink my stance on the Bond series.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
CBF
Hmmm interesting point @killerman200. I always thought that they didn't mention SPECTRE and SMERSH because they had already dealt with those agencies before, they had just never popped back up again. Of course I have no idea, you could be right.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
killerman200
No it established a new timeline and a new narrative perspective on this character. Which they have always done when changing a new Bond. Why wasn't there ever any mention of Spectre in the Brosnan version, because they renewed the timeline.
2 years agoby @killerman200Flag
CBF
Alternate universe/timeline means separate canon. Separate series. It needs to be in the same timeline to be a prequel. It can't possibly come before Dr. No when these new movies are in a post-9/11 world and the older series is in a pre-9/11, post-Cold War world. They don't line up, meaning not a prequel.
But I get what you guys mean. Because it's Bond on his first mission you feel it's a prequel.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Daveactor7
It is kind of a prequel when in casino royale he receives the agent code "007"
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
killerman200
They should have rushed that whole card game in Casino Royale. I'm sorry but if really know Bond then you knew that he is the ultimate card gamer and he was going to win the whole thing one way or the other.
2 years agoby @killerman200Flag
killerman200
CBF, hell, man how many times have they done that to Star Trek. You misunderstood me. When I said different timezone, i meant as in a different style of universe in the Bond world. Making it a prequel as well.
2 years agoby @killerman200Flag
killerman200
CBF, she was redeemed in Casino Royale. Not QoS.
2 years agoby @killerman200Flag