James Bond 23/3 is back on!

[Col.Foley]

Well as the old saying goes, you've gotta spend money to make money; and I don't think a financially-troubled film studio is any exception. They released what, 3 movies in 2009? And AFAIK only one this year. They're certainly not going to recoup their losses by sitting on an interest-collecting debt, and not releasing any moneymakers.

With any luck, Bond 23/3 in November and The Hobbit in December will go a long way to digging them out of their current predicament!

I would say with the exception of debt ridden countries...oh sorry companies.

MGM is doing the Hobbit?

And in any event its all about spending money and not willy nilly and just throwing it at something, in these situations you have to be smart for your funding and where you put it and why. I wonder if they are going to try and go for something low budget so they can get more bang for their buck? But regardless my point was I would rather not have them make a movie now if it risks them being in a financially precarious situation then wait and make sure their in better fiances. That way the movie and future movies future can be secure.

But I really want to see Craig again and want to see this arc continue.

I love the idea of John Cleese as Q. That would be divine!

And I like Daniel Craig as Bond. I never really cared for all the gadgetry--I really like this new gritty nature that he has. And the only Bond that I really can't watch is Timothy Dalton. But I like Craig the best.

Here's hoping that the movie gets made and that it's worth it.

Dalton was awesome.

[DigiFluid]

I would say with the exception of debt ridden countries...oh sorry companies.

Well that's a whole different animal for a whole different discussion In the case of corporations in debt, they can't really dig themselves out of that debt without doing something profitable. And uh....Hot Tub Time Machine as their only release this year isn't going to do it for them

Bond and The Hobbit sure won't be cheap productions, but I don't doubt that they'll more than make their money back. The two most recent Bond films made back 5x and over 2x their production costs respectively, while the Lord of the Rings trilogy made back 10x its $285m budget. Spend money to make money

[Col.Foley]

Well that's a whole different animal for a whole different discussion In the case of corporations in debt, they can't really dig themselves out of that debt without doing something profitable. And uh....Hot Tub Time Machine as their only release this year isn't going to do it for them

Bond and The Hobbit sure won't be cheap productions, but I don't doubt that they'll more than make their money back. The two most recent Bond films made back 5x and over 2x their production costs respectively, while the Lord of the Rings trilogy made back 10x its $285m budget. Spend money to make money

I don't disagree with you but youa re really going to spend your money wisely, though with those two projects it probably would be a very wise investment...as you said. Go all in in other words.

[Angela V]

Don't forget us Girl Action Junkies!

It was so awesome to see Timothy Dalton on Chuck last week!

[the fifth man]

It is very nice to see that another Bond film will be on the way.

[DigiFluid]

Rumour time: word is that a possible title for the fim is Red Sky at Night

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/7388..._on_board.html



That's a hell of a lot better of a title than Quantum of Solace

[Replicator Todd]

Rumour time: word is that a possible title for the fim is Red Sky at Night

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/7388..._on_board.html



That's a hell of a lot better of a title than Quantum of Solace

"Red Sky at Night" is pretty bad IMO.

[SaberBlade]

"Red Sky at Night" is pretty bad IMO.

Still better than Quantum of Solace though. It's the meaning I am concerned about, because everything Bond did was giving him a quantum of solace (a small bit of comfort) after Vesper died in Bond 22, but Red Sky at Night... unless it has to do with shepherds or sailors being happen (and Bond is a sailor, or should be, not sure if he's been called Commander Bond yet) I just hope it's not that literal.