Signs of life?

We could rent one for a day. I'll just be sure to take out extra insurance.

None of this talk is helping, by the way. Maybe we will have to start a thread about Daniel Craig's next film, the John Favreau-directed Cowboys and Aliens? The setting may make us forget Bond for a bit. Maybe.

Unlikely. I always bring in a new year by watching a Bond flick . . .

I have had a hankerin' for Casino Royale. I was waiting until I picked up the Collector's Edition at Walmart, but it appears to be out of their mod. I will have to bargain shop around for it.

I haven't seen it for cheap. Ever.

This is about as official as it gets:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118030077?refCatId=13

I am still skeptical about Mendes, but given the fact that it is the 50-year anniversary for the film series, I really hope that they take no chances with it.

One can only hope. I'm excited.

I love how MGM is going to "ditch its luxurious digs at the MGM Tower and move to a less costly office in Beverly Hills." That's rough . . . .

They still need to find more money -- a $500 million infusion of cash to a studio may seem like a lot, but when a Bond movie costs around $200 million (to say nothing of The Hobbit, it will not go far. Another deal with Sony is likely, but since Sony did quite well on their deals with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace I am sure that they will participate.

I thought MGM was signing away the distribution rights for The Hobbit? Sony is the obvious choice, but Bond is almost a guaranteed cash cow. If MGM can float the bill, it could reap them quite the profit. Still, a partner would be the conservative business choice.

I am hoping that MGM will release the remaining Bonds on Blu to coincide with the new film's release.

Giving away distribution rights are a way of raising cash. $500 million would not cover the costs of producing the Bond film and the Hobbit films, so deals like that are necessary to raise the additional cash needed. That can be painful sometimes. When the budget got out of control on Titanic, Fox signed a deal with Paramount giving them domestic distribution rights in exchange for providing financing to finish the film. Fox had already put up most of the money that it eventually cost to make the film, so Paramount got to reap the $600 million domestic gross for a very small investment.

I know. Business can have harsh realities attached to it.

That was my point about The Hobbit, incidentally. I thought those production costs had been covered by selling the distribution rights.

I am not sure how the deal works. My point is that no matter what, the $500 million is at best a start.

Well, if they want to just cut their losses, I will be more than happy to deal with the $500 million for them.

The fact that $500 million is not much money to jump-start a studio speaks volumes about how expensive producing movies has become.

And to think that they don't even use fancy cables when shooting films . . .

Silliness aside, it is quite shocking how expensive it is to shoot films. That said, the earnings from ticket sales can be equally as shocking.

Not to mention that nowadays theatrical revenues are not necessarily even the biggest part of the pie.

True. I've never paid so much for popcorn in all my life.

They are nasty, but I was referring to ancillary markets like home video, cable and satellite. (Concessions revenues go straight to the theatre, not the studios.) That is why the concept of a "flop" has changed a bit in the last several years -- you can have a film do poorly at the box office that still makes money on home video.




Interestingly, it looks like Fox may be making a play for Bond:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/01/19/bond-23-20th-century-fox-sony/

It will be interesting to see how the story unfolds. So long as we get Bond on Blu . . . .

The latest rumour from The Sun:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/01/21/bond-23-title-red-sky-at-night/

. . . and its nearly immediate debunking:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=9213&t=mi6&s=news


On the other hand, the stories about Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle and Tom Hardy as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises appear to be legit. Win some, lose some.

It will be interesting to see if Hathaway can pull off Catwoman. Bane should have been played by Vin Diesel. Period.

I would agree about Diesel, but Hardy is a helluva good actor, and Nolan has been right before in casting a seemingly odd choice. Actually, short of Diesel, Hardy would be a great second choice. Hathaway, of course, seems the odder choice. The most interesting thing about the announcement so far is that it specifically states that she has been cast as Selina Kyle, not as Catwoman. It makes you wonder if the third film will resemble the second one structurally in that Bane will be the focus of most of the film (which given Batman's renegade status at the end of the second film makes sense) and we will get the birth of Catwoman closer to the end.

It's possible. One of the great things Nolan has done with the franchise is focus on the personalities of the characters behind the mask. It will make for a more interesting tale to explore the relationship between Bruce and Selina before delving into the relationship of Batman and Catwoman. Plus, depending on what arc Nolan chooses to follow, Selina and Catwoman may very well become Batman's ally, at least for a while. Do we know if Nolan is basing this film on a particular graphic novel(s)? With Bane in the picture, and Batman's fatigue toward the end of the second film, I would think that Knightfall might be part of the inspiration.

It will likely be similar to his other Batman films in that it is inspired by many different comics, but not based on one in particular. But the connection between the ending of The Dark Knight and having Bane in the next one does seem to indicate that he will borrow from Knightfall.

The possibility of exploring the relationship between Bruce and Selina makes me think of Hush, but I'm not sure how much more Nolan would borrow from that tale.