MGM Aims To Have 'Bond 23' In Theaters In November 2012

by Kevin Jagernauth
November 4, 2010 6:03 AM
28 Comments
  • |

New Bond Film To Arrive Every Two Years After That



We'll try and keep the boring economics of this to minimum because it makes us fall asleep too, but MGM recently officially filed for bankruptcy and began restructuring proceedings that will put the legendary studio back into the business of making movies. As you already know, the first film out of the gate is the long-delayed and highly anticipated "The Hobbit" that will begin filming in February, but it looks like the other massive MGM franchise, the 'James Bond' series, will be headed back to the big screen sooner than we thought.

Bloomberg reports (via MovieWeb) that MGM's post-bankruptcy plans are very big indeed. They aim to have the next installment of the 'James Bond' series in theaters in November 2012, arriving one month before "The Hobbit" and marking one hell of a comeback, one-two punch for the studio. However, it's not a slam dunk just yet. The studio will be seeking a partner to fund the film (MGM will retain the rights) and if all goes according to plan, future installments will arrive every two years and will be fully bankrolled and wholly owned by the studio. It's certainly an ambitious plan but not without precedence; Bond films did arrive every two years up until the '90s when longer gaps appeared with the longest one marked by the six-year distance between 1989's "License To Kill" and 1995's "Goldeneye."

Of course, at this point, it's too early to tell if Sam Mendes, long attached to the picture, will sit in the director's chair or if the increasingly busy Daniel Craig will once again return (he certainly would love to come back). But it should be noted that back in September reports surfaced that "Bond 23" would go in front of cameras in the fall of 2011 and certainly, that timeline could definitely work.

There's no word yet from EON Productions, the production company that has been behind every Bond film to date and suspended the project earlier this year due to MGM's financial woes. But with MGM now rising back up, we wouldn't be surprised if those conversations are beginning to happen again.

It would definitely make sense that MGM wants to come out of the gate quick and strong and its certainly a no-brainer to have their two biggest moneymakers lead the charge.

  • |

More: Films, Film Studios, Genre Films, James Bond 23, MGM

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

28 Comments

  • Irf | November 5, 2010 12:53 PMReply

    Fuck Bond. Posh English wanker.

  • Xavier | November 5, 2010 11:38 AMReply

    Reply to "TheTruth":

    You're wrong. I'm a faggot. And i LOVE James & all the films. And if i meet you in a dark corner, i'll leave you slack-jawed. Fact.

  • tomo66 | November 5, 2010 9:03 AMReply

    Huge Bond fan. I always prefered Roger Moores portraial of Bond but the Daniel Craig relaunch 4 years back took me by surprise. It was different, yes, but I really liked that. And when I later compared it to "Die Another Day" I realized it was long overdue. I still love the old ones but this new take on the franchise I think is brilliant. To me at least...

  • TheTruth | November 5, 2010 6:38 AMReply

    Only slack jawed faggots hate James Bond. Fact.

  • Rustin Klein | November 5, 2010 5:45 AMReply

    ...and what's up with angst against Peter Jackson's Hobbit? This endeavor will surely put MGM back on the map.

  • Rustin | November 5, 2010 5:44 AMReply

    Phew -
    Andrew: Dude, did you just come on here to spin some negativity?

    The gadget free bond brought us back to the series at the Fleming novel era. Bond is a martini guzzling, womanizing, cold-blooded loose cannon. With Dench as M, she confronts him on this level.
    Remember that Bond took a shot at M in Dr. No (novel) because he was a wreckless renegade drunk.
    Craig brings that back to the series.
    And having a defibrilator in your glove compartment may not be considered a gadget, but it was awfully cool.

  • Derek | November 5, 2010 4:31 AMReply

    While I think Daniel Craig makes a great James Bond I have felt that the last two Bond movies were really poorly written and I have to agree with others here that the action sequences were poorly directed. Especially the last film. (see the boat anchor scene - WTF happened there).

  • SeanF | November 5, 2010 3:31 AMReply

    To spark & nick. lets take a look here. I think you folks must be fossils. You probably thought Lazenby and Moore were good. Come on, get real I watched all the films so far and to be fair I prefer the gritty gadget free Craig. At lease he has a proper accent unlike Brosnan who I thought was the worst bond ever.

    I do miss Q but I still think Craig and less suave approach works better. I love M played by Dame Dench and on a final note, I am glad there are not as many of those stupid one liners anymore, Bond was never supposed to be Arnie. Action... Zoom"guess his lunch didnt agree with him".... Cut that a wrap... GOOD BYE> :)

  • Kevin Jagernauth | November 5, 2010 3:19 AMReply

    If Eva Green doesn't qualify as a a "hot woman" you need your eyes examined.

  • mike | November 5, 2010 3:18 AMReply

    I just think it is funny - When Timothy Dalton took over the role, the movies were panned, and he was criticized for being too cruel and cold-blooded, and the villians were more down-to-earth......................the exact same reasons why the Daniel Craig movies are praised.

  • Mike | November 5, 2010 3:17 AMReply

    If Bond 23 ever gets made, it needs a serious retooling. The movies with Sean Connery and Roger Moore were great. The Pierce Brosnan movies weren't too bad, but not as good as Sean Connery or Roger Moore's Bond.

    Daniel Craig is a great actor. But so far, the movies haven't really felt like "Bond" movies to me.

  • thorpie | November 5, 2010 3:16 AMReply

    Daniel Craig's movies are not "James Bond" movies, they are "Jason Bourne" movies.
    No hot women, no gadgets, no sense of humor, no good action scenes.
    (note to the director: Shaking the camera does not make a good action scene - nor standing in front of a green screen)

    The funny thing is, the Pierce Brosnan movies were horrible, yet Pierce wasn't a bad Bond. The movies were getting ridiculous, but at least they were tolerable, the sole reason being Brosnan.

  • BradZuhl | November 5, 2010 2:27 AMReply

    Personally, I think Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery, so I hope they can make a bunch more Bond films with him before he gets too old or too bored with it. He brings a level of authenticity and cold-bloodedness to it that Ian Fleming's original books had.

  • e | November 5, 2010 1:44 AMReply

    Although everyone deserves their opinion it's clear Nick is clueless. 'Casino' was one of the best Bond films made - and Jack White/Alicia Keys theme in Quantum - although not 'radio-popular' was damn good.

  • Jim | November 5, 2010 1:34 AMReply

    Who ever sings the theme song for the movie. DO NOT LET JUSTIN BEIBER SING THE BOND THEME SONG!!!!!

  • jl | November 5, 2010 1:18 AMReply

    I mean, yeah, it's just one of the greatest characters and film series of all time ... so chill.

  • Edward Davis | November 5, 2010 1:14 AMReply

    God, you guys need to chill, it's only Bond.

  • Nick | November 4, 2010 12:03 PMReply

    I have to agree with John 007. I did not like Daniel Craig as Bond at all. Definately my least favourite Bond, neither did I like Casino Royale or Quantum of Solice finding the plot way too obscure. Friends who saw it with me said it only makes sense when you view it a second time and preferably on your PC monitor where you can see all the action at once. The theme songs in the last two films - always an important element of any Bond film - were totally forgettable. If Michael G; Wilson and Barbara Brocolli wanted to re-establish Bond as "younger and more vulnerable" in Casino Royale, they should have cast Henry Cavill in the role, whether he was considered too young or not. He would have been ideal.

  • Un-SPARK FAN | November 4, 2010 11:53 AMReply

    Spark~
    Are you retarded? Casino Royale was the best Bond movie since "You Only Live Twice". It's offensive that you would say that.......What are you going to say next, that Bond should get rid of his Walter PPK? Maybe he should dabble with his sexuality? Perhaps stop driving Aston Martin's and start driving a VW beetle. Grow up.

  • Vince | November 4, 2010 11:49 AMReply

    There was a four year gap between Die Another Day and
    Casino Royal and no one bitched about that.
    Well seeing as we ended up with DC. Wilson and Co were jerking our chains since they wanted DC all along.
    Never forgive them for that.

  • @BaybeeTeaze♡ღ | November 4, 2010 11:44 AMReply

    the next bond film will be a remake of goldfinger, mr connery will play M, mr moore will play goldfinger, mr chan will play odjob and mr craaig will play 007

  • David Webster | November 4, 2010 10:57 AMReply

    Daniel Craig has indeed put a new spin on Bond which is a breath of fresh air after the flamboyant gadgetry of die another day. I mean come on, an invisible car and surfing almost ruined Bond for me and I am one of the franchises biggest fans. Daniel Craig has given the series a breath of fresh air.

  • John 007 | November 4, 2010 10:52 AMReply

    YESS!! I'm SUPER PSYCHED!! It's about time, and I'm psyched about it. 2012 is going to be a good year, apocalypse be damned...
    JAMES BOND LIVES!!!

  • Spark | November 4, 2010 10:23 AMReply

    Get rid of Daniel Craig, he's the worst Bond ever, and those last two movies were horrible.

  • Andrew | November 4, 2010 10:02 AMReply

    I was really hoping MGM might just die and then James Bond would die with it. Now it's back and badder than ever, inflicting not only James Bond on us every two years from now until the end of the world, but also The Hobbit. Ugh.

  • kevin | November 4, 2010 9:38 AMReply

    you do know that in between goldeneye and die another day was 1997's tomorrow never dies and 1999's the world is not enough

  • Kevin Jagernauth | November 4, 2010 7:15 AMReply

    Yep, you're right. Fixed.

  • ian | November 4, 2010 7:13 AMReply

    Sorry but wasn't 1989 licence to kill. And 1995 Goldeneye longer then 2002's Die Another Day” and 2006’s “Casino Royale.From a very big James Bond Fan.

Email Updates