JAMES BOND 23 Delayed Indefinitely

     April 19, 2010


With the future of MGM still uncertain, James Bond producers Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have suspended development on the next James Bond film previously scheduled for release 2011/2012.

“Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development on BOND 23 indefinitely. We do not know when development will resume and do not have a date for the release of BOND 23,” stated Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli jointly.

More after the jump:

daniel_craig_james_bond_quantum_of_solace_movie_image__7_.jpgWhile the next Bond may be delayed for now, the franchise is one of the crown jewels of the MGM library and whoever ends up getting control of the studio will obviously move forward with the next installment the day after the paperwork is signed.  After all, the last Bond film cost $200 million and it made $586 million at the worldwide box office.

Also, while the project may be delayed indefinitely, back in June of last year we reported Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen), Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (Quantum of Solace, Casino Royale) would be the screenwriters of the next film.  What that means is… producers Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli must have at least a few drafts of the next Bond screenplay and once the MGM sale is completed, it shouldn’t be too hard to move the project in front of the cameras.

What is most interesting about the delay is what director Sam Mendes is going to do.  He was originally attached to direct Preacher, but then he moved over to Bond.  I wonder if he’ll go back to that project or venture onto something completely new…

More as we get it.


Around The Web
  • Chuckowsky

    I wonder how bad they're doing. I guess it must be terrible if they're not trying to play this card. A Bond movie or two could earn a lot of debt paying money .

  • Matt

    damn it…now im really sad about this. honestly, right when i read this, my stomach lurched with sadness. Daniel Craig has to come back, he's the best Bond in the entire franchise. Ive said this before, if Daniel Craig doesn't come back as Bond, the movies won't be the same again, and most likely i'll refuse to see them. But it's not gonna be the same without him frown. All james bond movies are way better than the pieces of crap that have been coming out lately. :((

  • Jackie D.

    oh well, now Daniel Craig can be a year older and a year uglier….poor man's Bond.

  • truthinessinc

    “Jackie D.”

    If you bothered to look, Bond finally looks the way he was intended. It's to bad you've been choking down the Machine produced, boy band Bonds all these years…but then…maybe that's what you're into, in that case, I heard, remarkably, Ricky Martin is single..WHO KNEW!

    bet you did!

  • whatever

    Craig is the best bond since Connery. By the time this is sorted out the new Bond series will feel warmed over and they will be looking for yet another reboot. I predict some jackass will pitch “Robert Patinson as a fresher, more sensitive Bond”

  • Mary

    Man, I was so looking forward to this movie. Guess I will have to watch my other Daniel Craig movies to tie me over until a new one.

  • Matt

    i swear, if they out someone no talent actor like robert patinson as james bond, i will never forgive EON for making that choice. And why des everyone say Daniel Craig is the best Bond SINCE Connery? Craig is way better than Connery as James Bond, hands down!

  • M Slater

    “After all, the last Bond film cost $200 million and it made $586 at the worldwide box office.”

    Where I'm from, that would be considered a massive loss.

  • Nick

    Never mind. The last two Bond's were just normal mediocre action movies, not Bond movies. A crisis can bring back the magic.

  • 3dpenguin

    The problem is Sony and the other corporate investors haven't anything left to run into the ground, one film is not enough to keep a studio afloat. When the corporate group headed by Sony acquires MGM they did so assuming they would have access to the amassed movie product from over half a century, unfortunately most of what MGM owned had been sold off to companies like Warner and Disney through the struggling 90's, so they were left with only a hand full of United Artist movie franchise, specifically James Bond and The Pink Panther, movies MGM/UA hadn't relinquished the titles through sales because of the long standing history of the movies with the studios, considering their profit abilities its no surprise. To add to the downturn in MGM stock value Disney chose to not continue their contract with MGM for MGM Studios (now Hollywood Studios) Disney, probably due to high licencing demands from Sony and the other corpet owners.

    They are now basically trying to unload a dead body, it is not worth their time to support a company which produces $200 million dollar movies for $500 million dollars in profit ever 3-4 years, when it cost $50-$100 million a year to keep the company running. Nobody is interested in touching the studio either because as I pointed out there is no valuable property left in the studio, Bond still has potential but that's one movie franchise which is loosing support of its fans and Ian Flemming's family, and Sony pretty much ran the Pink Panther into the ground thanks mostly to poorly laid out scripts and bad casting, Martin is a decent enough actor, but he made Clouseau look like a complete buffoon with little to no charm what so ever, which is probably due more to the scrip than his acting ability.

  • noone

    Hope you're joking. It made $586M, not five hundred eight-six dollars.

  • Sara

    Oh goodness, the last time that happened it took about six years for the franchise to continue. I wonder how long it will be this time.

  • Chuckowsky

    Thanks for clarifying the actual state MGM finds itself in right now, I had no idea that is is so bad.

    I agree with what you said about wasting two franchises they have now, especially Pink Panther, which was ruined by the two recent films. They could've done this the old-fashioned way, but instead they decided to go another direction and it definitely didn't work out perfectly both financially and artistically.

  • Benny

    When you say that a studio can't survive on one film alone, I'd like to point out that that is what MGM tried to do. http://bit.ly/alfDCq The only film they released this year was “Hot Tub Time Machine.” Obviously it did well, but not good enough to keep them afloat.

    I also like how no one is mentioning how “The Hobbit” will be fairing in all of this. MGM is partially financing the films, so who knows what it means for them.

  • 3dpenguin


    When I said a studio can't survive on one film alone, that's exactly what I meant. MGM hardly ever releases films, one film at most per year, and out of the films they do release its unlikely for them to be big hits, even Bond requires Home Video releases to actually turn the profit numbers they show in the end. So the studio is really hurting. Over the next few years (including 2010) they are showing 6 movies in production through them, one of which is Bond 23 which we know is delayed indefinitely, and about 14 being distributed, again one is Bond 23, of these films most don't seem all that profitable other than the Hobbit and Bond.


    As for the Hobbit being pushed back, very unlikely. They are currently getting all the odds and ends together for the film and they do have a backer for the films, namely Warner who went in as an unwilling co-production company on the film, thanks to MGM holding the production rights to the Hobbit. The Hobbit is being produced by two defunct production companies, MGM and New Line, the only thing keeping it afloat is the fact that Warner wants it made at this time, if they lose interest don't expect Sony to come in and bail it out, because I suspect very little of the funding is coming from the MGM side of the production.

  • 3dpenguin

    They also own Stargate, but again that hinges on being able to distribute it, there is likely little to no profit to be seen in theaters from the franchise, which is loosely stated seeing its mostly TV now, and they suffer no production loss on it because they only distribute the show because they own the distribution rights, its Universal that has kept the show afloat all these years.

  • tyler

    $3.7 million

  • C.James

    i hope the situation get resolved because the James Bond industry is huge and the fan base is what makes the movies and character. the Bond Frachise is deffiently outstandble. i really hope that they come to some agreement, the Bond films are by far my favorite movies own every single one and one the biggest fans. Ian Flemming and Albert Broccoli would not want to see this character and story die.

  • C.James

    i hope the situation get resolved because the James Bond industry is huge and the fan base is what makes the movies and character. the Bond Frachise is deffiently outstandble. i really hope that they come to some agreement, the Bond films are by far my favorite movies own every single one and one the biggest fans. Ian Flemming and Albert Broccoli would not want to see this character and story die.

  • Pingback: MGM Woes Add RED DAWN Remake and Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard’s CABIN IN THE WOODS to the Delayed List()

  • http://www.thebondjourney.com Grant

    This is certainly disappointing news as Daniel Craig was doing a great job as 007. I thought he was perfect in the role. He played James Bond in a similar fashion to Timothy Dalton – giving the character a serious side that was lacking in previous Bond films.

    I hope it's not another 6 years for the series to be put on hold as it'd be great to see Craig back in action.

  • Pingback: James Bond Screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade Penning New International Action Thriller()

  • Pingback: Latest Sam Mendes Film Shuts Down Production « Movies, Reviews and More - Screenhead()

  • Pingback: THE HOBBIT to Begin Filming January? JAMES BOND 23 Shooting Next Summer or Fall?()

  • Die every day

    We’ve to take Pierce brosnan for Bond23 daniel craig is not good……and try to catch Hugh jackman for next Bond movie or johnny depp i think he’s great and villian role perfectly will like him…….!

  • Pingback: James Bond 23 May Not Happen | CDInsight()

  • Pingback: Bond 23 en "retraso indefinido" « SALONDELMAL.com()