StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh, I don't like this development at all, what so ever:

New James Bond film has been cancelled

The new James Bond film, due for release by 2012, has been cancelled due to a cash crisis.

Production crew were told in April the £132 million blockbuster, starring Daniel Craig, had been postponed amid "financial problems" at debt ridden movie studio MGM, which co-funded the film.

The studio has now confirmed that filming of Bond 23 has been axed completely - and it could be years before the secret agent is back on the big screen.

American Beauty director Sam Mendes had been lined up to direct the twenty-third film in the franchise.

But production company EON have confirmed in a statement: "We do not know when development will resume and cannot comment further at this stage."

Yahoo

That's so drastic another media company will have to step in to save the project and this story's been circulating for many months now. How did MGM get in such a state? Sony sucks (again).

Fuuuck. This was supposed to be the only project at MGN still going ahead.

Oh for fuck's sake. Why won't Sony take this cash cow on? I won't even mind if they continue the hilariously obvious product placement, so long as we get an ending to this story arc.

Damn. Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, and he might have a shorter run than Pierce Brosnan.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Oh for fuck's sake. Why won't Sony take this cash cow on? I won't even mind if they continue the hilariously obvious product placement, so long as we get an ending to this story arc.

Most likely the reason is that they can't take it without buying at least a majority share in MGM, since the rights to the James Bond franchise are owned by MGM rather than Sony Pictures. Currently Sony owns only 20% of MGM. The rest of the shareholders of course want to get as much from the sell as they can and apparently Sony is not willing to offer that much. Who knows; if all the other talks fall through, Sony may still finance MGM so that they can at least continue the James Bond series and finish other movies in advanced stages of production, including the...wait for it... remake of the Red Dawn

Alyeska wrote:Damn. Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, and he might have a shorter run than Pierce Brosnan.

More along the lines of Timothy Dalton, me thinks...

Alyeska wrote:Damn. Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, and he might have a shorter run than Pierce Brosnan.

This would suit me just fine. But then, I think my dislike of the Craig Bond is well-known.

Still, it's a shame to axe it in mid-stride.

This is also bad because it confirms MGM's financial state is worse than we thought. It puts the Stargate franchise and SGU at risk.

JME2 wrote:This is also bad because it confirms MGM's financial state is worse than we thought. It puts the Stargate franchise and SGU at risk.

Ooooh shit. That is bad.

Perhaps Sci-Fi will pick it up in it's entirety? I really don't want SGU to just... Go away on that freaking cliffhanger. That would be as evil as what happened to Firefly.

It wouldn't be that bad. The SG franchise has gotten plenty of support from the channel and distributors. It has been heavily promoted.

Firefly was just thrown out there on a Friday night with no lead in shows or any real promotion. FOX had no idea what to do with it.

Anyway, NOOOOOOOOOO I was loving Daniel Craig's run on Bond. No stupid puns, no magic devices from Q that could only have one possible application, his attitude towards women a little more in line with the books, Craig himself actually looked like someone who was just plucked from SpecOps and is still learning the ropes on this whole "secret agent" thing.

No, we don't want the Sci-Fi network, or Syfy ("Siffy?") picking it up. They'll cancel it for "Cooking With Midgets" or something like that.

There is no science fiction channel anymore. There is a network that does seem to show a few more science-fiction re-runs than others, but there is no longer a dedicated science-fiction network. That's what I tell myself. It went under a few years ago. Now we have to wait until some other enterprising soul with connections comes along to make an actual network dedicated to showing science-fiction.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

JME2 wrote:This is also bad because it confirms MGM's financial state is worse than we thought. It puts the Stargate franchise and SGU at risk.

Ooooh shit. That is bad.

Perhaps Sci-Fi will pick it up in it's entirety? I really don't want SGU to just... Go away on that freaking cliffhanger. That would be as evil as what happened to Firefly.

Season 2 is already in production, so that at least is in the can. A Season 3, however, depends on MGM's financial state in another year.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

JME2 wrote:This is also bad because it confirms MGM's financial state is worse than we thought. It puts the Stargate franchise and SGU at risk.

Ooooh shit. That is bad.

Perhaps Sci-Fi will pick it up in it's entirety? I really don't want SGU to just... Go away on that freaking cliffhanger. That would be as evil as what happened to Firefly.

After an initial strong start, the original SciFi Channel went through a long period of continuous decline. They were consistently making bad programing and scheduling decisions, and eventually it became the direct to video / made for SciFi movie channel with shit like Mansquito. Now they're nothing but another version of Spike TV. I've been continually disappointed by them, and wouldn't trust them with any series.

As for the OP, it seems like a lot of studios are feeling the pinch. I've heard that despite some decent returns, a lot of movies this spring and summer have so far been considered to be disappointments or at least under perform.

Temujin wrote:As for the OP, it seems like a lot of studios are feeling the pinch. I've heard that despite some decent returns, a lot of movies this spring and summer have so far been considered to be disappointments or at least under perform.

Oh I don't know, maybe theater goers are sick of every film being put out in 3D and the resulting tickets being twice as much as a normal admission.

Yeah, I'm figuring that as stupid as the population is, even they're getting sick of the overpriced gimmicks, not to mention the utter lack of originality.

It's often said that the majority of any entertainment media is like 90% shit, 10% decent material (of course your mileage may very); but I think the sheer media overload that has occurred in the past decade has really exhausted the limited creativity of the corporate media machine. It seems that while the overall percentage of material has increased, the amount of decent material produced has decreased.

JME2 wrote:

Temujin wrote:As for the OP, it seems like a lot of studios are feeling the pinch. I've heard that despite some decent returns, a lot of movies this spring and summer have so far been considered to be disappointments or at least under perform.

Oh I don't know, maybe theater goers are sick of every film being put out in 3D and the resulting tickets being twice as much as a normal admission.

Can they not opt out of seeing them in 3D?

Well I had a problem seeing some films because they were only playing them in 3D, especially after the first week or two.

Frankly, I'm sick of going to the cinema to see films. The experience is just not the same, especially the way people behave in public anymore. I used to go every week and never had a problem. Now even though I go maybe once every moth or two, the theater always seems to be filled with annoying, obnoxious, disruptive people who just ruin the experience. I'd rather just stay at home and pay extra to watch the latest movie on something like pay-per-view.

Because 3D is TEH FUTUAR!!1! And is totally not a gimmick. Even something doing it properly, and not as a "Whoooo! Watch this object come out to get you!" bullshit feature, like Avatar, doesn't really add anything to it. Yet they charge huge amounts for tickets and wonder why people aren't rallying behind this stuff in a depression Don't even get me started on 3D TV.

I really do hope one of Sony's studios picks up Bond, or at least some other studio looks at it.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Because 3D is TEH FUTUAR!!1! And is totally not a gimmick. Even something doing it properly, and not as a "Whoooo! Watch this object come out to get you!" bullshit feature, like Avatar, doesn't really add anything to it. Yet they charge huge amounts for tickets and wonder why people aren't rallying behind this stuff in a depression Don't even get me started on 3D TV.

The 3D tech industry has been lobbying like crazies the "this time it will be different and 3D is here to stay" message and apparently it is working, for now, probably because the novelty value has not yet completely disappeared. I would be inclined to believe them if somebody invented a 3D system that does not need the glasses and would not give headaches or weird vibes to a significant minority of viewers. Otherwise it's just a fad like it was in the previous times 3D movies were fashionable. Even Avatar, which is about the best 3D movie ever made, is still at least as enjoyable in 2D. 3D TV is even crazier: do they really believe people will start using the glasses at home?

Admiral Valdemar wrote: I really do hope one of Sony's studios picks up Bond, or at least some other studio looks at it.

Somebody will pick up Bond for sure, but it will have to wait for the final destiny of MGM. The shareholders don't want to sell just the Bond franchise, since it is one of the most valuable parts of MGM and selling stuff like that would leave the rump completely unsellable.

Temujin wrote:Well I had a problem seeing some films because they were only playing them in 3D, especially after the first week or two.

Frankly, I'm sick of going to the cinema to see films. The experience is just not the same, especially the way people behave in public anymore. I used to go every week and never had a problem. Now even though I go maybe once every moth or two, the theater always seems to be filled with annoying, obnoxious, disruptive people who just ruin the experience. I'd rather just stay at home and pay extra to watch the latest movie on something like pay-per-view.

Totally with you on this one. If there was a way for me to pay full ticket price for a film, but then get to watch it in the comfort of my own home at my own pace, where I could pause, turn subtitles on and off etc at will, I would be totally down with that.

But no, the best you can hope for is those stupid "rentals" you get on pay TV, coming months after the movie came out.

3D TV is even crazier: do they really believe people will start using the glasses at home?

Nintendo 3DS.

Believe.

JLTucker wrote:

JME2 wrote:

Temujin wrote:As for the OP, it seems like a lot of studios are feeling the pinch. I've heard that despite some decent returns, a lot of movies this spring and summer have so far been considered to be disappointments or at least under perform.

Oh I don't know, maybe theater goers are sick of every film being put out in 3D and the resulting tickets being twice as much as a normal admission.

Can they not opt out of seeing them in 3D?

Not always. When I went to see Clash of the Titans, all the theaters in town only had it in 3D.

adam_grif wrote:

Temujin wrote:Well I had a problem seeing some films because they were only playing them in 3D, especially after the first week or two.

Frankly, I'm sick of going to the cinema to see films. The experience is just not the same, especially the way people behave in public anymore. I used to go every week and never had a problem. Now even though I go maybe once every moth or two, the theater always seems to be filled with annoying, obnoxious, disruptive people who just ruin the experience. I'd rather just stay at home and pay extra to watch the latest movie on something like pay-per-view.

Totally with you on this one. If there was a way for me to pay full ticket price for a film, but then get to watch it in the comfort of my own home at my own pace, where I could pause, turn subtitles on and off etc at will, I would be totally down with that.

But no, the best you can hope for is those stupid "rentals" you get on pay TV, coming months after the movie came out.

Dude its called HBO, Cinemax (plays the same movies as HBO, just comes with more porn at night), Showtime, and Starz. You'll get every major release (and some minors) 1 year after its put into theaters from EVERY studio (with the exception of Paramount at the moment).
HBO = WB, FOX, Universal, Dreamworks, and more.
Showtime = Lionsgate and a few others, I just can't think of them.
Starz = Disney, Columbia Pictures, Summit, and more.

Though you're on your own with the subtitles (do you really need them THAT much).

Personally, I love going to the movies. I never really had issues with the crowd (with the exception of a friend who likes to act out if he thinks the movies sucks). You laugh when they laugh, you clap when they clap, you cry (bunch of pussies) when they cry. Its a good experience. Worth the money, no, but that is why I movie hop.

montypython wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Damn. Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, and he might have a shorter run than Pierce Brosnan.

More along the lines of Timothy Dalton, me thinks...

That's funny because Dalton was also left in limbo for several years waiting for MGM/UA and the production company to settle a lawsuit. Finally, he got tired of waiting and quit the series.

Temujin wrote:Well I had a problem seeing some films because they were only playing them in 3D, especially after the first week or two.

Whine whine. A couple years ago, my local theater retrofitted virtually all of the screens it had with a RWC system


RWC Screen

Suddenly, I could fucking have a good chance of watching first run movies. Then about six months to a year ago; the theater for some completely bizarre reason, removed RWC capability from all but one screen.

Now; I don't watch movies no more; because it's now impossible to find a movie.

Link to Regal Cinemas OC/RWC Page

This week; the movies in my city (Rockville/Silver Spring) which are Open Captioned (OC) or Rear Window Captioned (RWC) are......

The Karate Kid and Grown Ups.

No fucking thanks.

If I want to see Toy Story 3; it's a minimal 30-45 minute drive to get to Columbia or Frederick. I'm interested in TS3; but not that interested.

Whiplash wrote:Dude its called HBO, Cinemax (plays the same movies as HBO, just comes with more porn at night), Showtime, and Starz. You'll get every major release (and some minors) 1 year after its put into theaters from EVERY studio (with the exception of Paramount at the moment).
HBO = WB, FOX, Universal, Dreamworks, and more.
Showtime = Lionsgate and a few others, I just can't think of them.
Starz = Disney, Columbia Pictures, Summit, and more.

Though you're on your own with the subtitles (do you really need them THAT much).

Except that you have to wait a year, and can't pause and shit. Sure DVDs and On Demand sometimes are available in as little as 90 days, but there's no reason it can't be set up to have a recently produced movie available. I would probably pay the same fee to see a recently released movie at home, and end up paying to see a lot more of them than I do now if they offered this.

I would also rather see some film adaptations made into a mini or maxi series, but with movie level quality. This way some stories could be better adapted. Of course they could do this and show it in the theater in parts, but they won't.

I also think movie theaters are going to see a crunch in the coming years, and as more stuff becomes essentially downloadable / on demand, so will the traditional movie channels, not to mention crap channels that play heavily edited and censored movies.