Roger Michell NOT directing Bond 22

[RedIsNotBlue]

Looks like negotiations with him have not worked out. I wonder if this could possibly create a release change for the movie and give Iron Man some breathing room?

[IronMan_2005]

I hope JB22 never finds a damned director. Pricks knew Iron Man is going to be released that day, yet they want to claim that spot:mad:

[chiefchirpa]

Haha, so Iron Man will take May 2 2008 alone.

[Ironman24]

Its early yet, they can still find a directer and keep that date as a target, it does however, open the door to move.

[Advanced Dark]

Bond was never gonna come out on the same date. Sony playing chicken as I've always said and hoping Marvel financing would be delayed. Not gonna happen. Marvel already secured studio space for Iron Man.

[TheVileOne]

The revolving doors of directors for X-men 3 didn't affect the release date. But a piece of crap was produced as a result.

[RedIsNotBlue]

The revolving doors of directors for X-men 3 didn't affect the release date. But a piece of crap was produced as a result.

But that was Fox. They rush every movie regardless of director.

[Advanced Dark]

Iron Man is so far ahead of Bond 22 and Iron Man will be more of an attraction to the younger males that drive the box office in these genre films. Most people under 21 if you'd ask them what would you rather watch James Bond or Iron Man would answer Iron Man if you took a general poll in the street. If they don't know who Iron Man is they'll see enough trailers and tv spots of Iron Man to realize they want to see it just like Fantastic Four managed 58 million when it was relatively unknown to the young audiences that flocked to see it opening weekend.

[TheVileOne]

Fantastic Four didn't make $58 million opening weekend.

Can anyone here give me legitimate proof that more people under 21 would answer Iron Man over James Bond?

I mean some legitimate actual proof that they would.

The way I see it, Bond is a pop culture icon to a level that Iron Man has never reached.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Iron Man is so far ahead of Bond 22 and Iron Man will be more of an attraction to the younger males that drive the box office in these genre films. Most people under 21 if you'd ask them what would you rather watch James Bond or Iron Man would answer Iron Man if you took a general poll in the street. If they don't know who Iron Man is they'll see enough trailers and tv spots of Iron Man to realize they want to see it just like Fantastic Four managed 58 million when it was relatively unknown to the young audiences that flocked to see it opening weekend.

Lol...I think your being a little biased. I think James Bond has more appeal than Iron Man. I am not saying Iron Man isn't popular or well known but James Bond is just ahead of him. I am not sure if you were one of them but there were plenty of people saying the same thing when comparing Superman to POTC and we all know how that turned out.

[TheVileOne]

A little biased?

[hippie_hunter]

Advanced Dark invests in Marvel, of course he is going to be biased.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Lol is Marvel stock even worth much these days?

[Advanced Dark]

^ The fact you clowns forget to mention is I also own TWX which I've mentioned several times but not nearly as much as Marvel. Marvel is a better company with more popular characters at the box office. Iron Man will be out on May 2 2008 and Bond will not is also another fact some of you just don't get yet. Just like I said Punisher 2 won't hit 2006 in last years round of arguments. Marvel's stock is close to all time highs near 21 and if it's pe remains the same through 2007 it'll be at 30 and probably over 45 in 2008 inhouse revenue from Iron Man & Hulk looming for 2009.

BTW even if I was bias as far as what films I enjoy or characters I like does not mean my argument is wrong. Everyone in the Batman forums called me bias which to me was kind of ironic. There are those here who like Bond more than Superhero films in general. Personal tastes aside...

1) Bond has never competed against a big budget superhero film.
2) Marvel has always had stellar opening weekends even for those films without legs with their bigger budgeted films. Hulk = 62 million Fantastic Four 58 million. Or numbers close to that.
3) Iron Man is much further along than Bond 22.

[Cinemaman]

IM can have better marketing strategy and bigger opening.

But then, the quality of movie will continue box office.

If IM is good movie, it will have good legs.

But JB has fanbase, what doesn't have movie like IM.

[TheVileOne]

A super hero movie has never had to compete with James Bond.

Iron Man = something that aspires and emulates Bond.

Bond = a pop cultural icon and legend for half a century. Set templates and traits that Iron Man follows.

[muscaremy]

its tough to say its like vile keeps sayin Bond IS an icon....i mean cmon hes bond....but id rather see Iron Man

[YJ1]

its tough to say its like vile keeps sayin Bond IS an icon....i mean cmon hes bond....but id rather see Iron Man

Icon or not, the Bond concept is simply stale after 21 movies and FAR better actors having already played the part. You can find a cheesy Bond movie playing almost any time of the day on cable. No one has seen the likes of Iron Man on the silver screen before. Unless Bond goes to a hard "R" rating, it's hard to avoid the "been there done that" feeling Bond now conveys. Add the fact that they cast an unknown goofball as the new Bond and the entire franchise is extremely vulnerable.

Honestly, at this point, Bond is more of an annoyance then a threat.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Icon or not, the Bond concept is simply stale after 21 movies and FAR better actors having already played the part. You can find a cheesy Bond movie playing almost any time of the day on cable. No one has seen the likes of Iron Man on the silver screen before. Unless Bond goes to a hard "R" rating, it's hard to avoid the "been there done that" feeling Bond now conveys. Add the fact that they cast an unknown goofball as the new Bond and the entire franchise is extremely vulnerable.

Honestly, at this point, Bond is more of an annoyance then a threat.

To you. The numbers of the latest Bond movies show that there is still a huge interest in the character.

[Advanced Dark]

A super hero movie has never had to compete with James Bond.

Iron Man = something that aspires and emulates Bond.

Bond = a pop cultural icon and legend for half a century. Set templates and traits that Iron Man follows.

Franchies can be long lasting but that doesn't mean it can stand against a more current hip genre that's supporting by a larger crowd of young people who drag in families and their friends over and over. There's no doubt Bond is an icon and a popular franchise that will be around for years to come however no Bond film has come close to making what Hulk or Fantastic Four has on opening weekend. Sure neither of those had legs but that kind of vaccuum on opening weekend would suck the life out of any competition and the competition would find it hard pressed to recover in it's second or 3rd weekend when a string of mega-budget movies are coming out one weekend after the next. Bond is more suited to come out against counter programming and NOT against a large budget action film that tends to draw huge crowds on opening weekend. Fantastic Four or Hulk if it had opened against Casino Royale would have crushed it and while both films would be hurt the Bond film doesn't have the same kind of frantic fan base, nor does it have as broad of a fan base. The Marvel & DC brand name is enough to lure millions of kids, young adults, and adults to rush out on opening weekend. Your mistaken if you think I have any ill feelings towards Bond. It's a stupid move by Sony or a game of chicken. Sony isn't in a position to do this. However other studios are like when Oceans 13 moved in on Blade Trinity's date or Kill Bill moved in on Punisher. It was clear which film had more power and Marvel should have pushed the studios to move out of the way. There's no reason for Marvel to move away from Bond.

[YJ1]

Franchies can be long lasting but that doesn't mean it can stand against a more current hip genre that's supporting by a larger crowd of young people who drag in families and their friends over and over. There's no doubt Bond is an icon and a popular franchise that will be around for years to come however no Bond film has come close to making what Hulk or Fantastic Four has on opening weekend. Sure neither of those had legs but that kind of vaccuum on opening weekend would suck the life out of any competition and the competition would find it hard pressed to recover in it's second or 3rd weekend when a string of mega-budget movies are coming out one weekend after the next. Bond is more suited to come out against counter programming and NOT against a large budget action film that tends to draw huge crowds on opening weekend. Fantastic Four or Hulk if it had opened against Casino Royale would have crushed it and while both films would be hurt the Bond film doesn't have the same kind of frantic fan base, nor does it have as broad of a fan base. The Marvel & DC brand name is enough to lure millions of kids, young adults, and adults to rush out on opening weekend. Your mistaken if you think I have any ill feelings towards Bond. It's a stupid move by Sony or a game of chicken. Sony isn't in a position to do this. However other studios are like when Oceans 13 moved in on Blade Trinity's date or Kill Bill moved in on Punisher. It was clear which film had more power and Marvel should have pushed the studios to move out of the way. There's no reason for Marvel to move away from Bond.

All very good points. Except it was Oceans 12 that muscled Blade Trinity. Ocean 13 is due for some payback via Marvel's first family. FF2 will take out Clooney and his crew one week after they hit.

Payback's a *****.

[Advanced Dark]

All very good points. Except it was Oceans 12 that muscled Blade Trinity. Ocean 13 is due for some payback via Marvel's first family. FF2 will take out Clooney and his crew one week after they hit.

Payback's a *****.

Oceans 12 right that's what I meant BTW which also had the biggest marketing campaign in film history though it didn't seem like it.

[Advanced Dark]

To you. The numbers of the latest Bond movies show that there is still a huge interest in the character.

Alot of that had to do with Pierce Brosnan you can't argue that. He was a big draw. Timothy Dalton was not a draw though his Bond films to me were great. He just didn't have the star power like Brosnan had, and Pierce was gonna be Bond before Dalton but Remington held him back. Most people were wanting Pierce to get the gig and he's a pretty big sex symbol so he dragged in lots of Women into those films. Craig is still a relative unknown and i have no doubt Bond 21-22 will be fun action films and probably on a higher level than previous films as far as action and budget...it won't matter. Sony knows this which is why they're moving.

[Advanced Dark]

Well well well look at this:

Bond addicts will be gratified to learn that the next 007 movie, (so far code-named simply Bond 22), is already on the production schedule, and will be timed to coincide with the centenary of Ian Fleming’s birth in May 2008. A new Bond novel has also been commissioned for timely publication. So far, the author’s identity is a closely guarded secret, but spymasters Frederick Forsyth and John Le Carré are both believed to be in the frame.

That explains the May date but was his birth on May 2nd???

Edit: Nope he was born on May 28th. Expect a move closer to that date.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Cool whatever. I just think there is a little putting down going on here just because Iron Man is preferred.

[Advanced Dark]

I hope it stays civil there's no reason for it not to.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Haha why did you change your original message? But I agree let's not argue. I just was seeing tinges of something that looked like that old "Superman will own POTC2" conversations I have seen in the past from others. :)

[YJ1]

Well well well look at this:



That explains the May date but was his birth on May 2nd???

Edit: Nope he was born on May 28th. Expect a move closer to that date.

Hopefully Gene Roddenberry will float over and console Ian after he sees what they've done to Bond by casting this guy...

http://gfx.filmweb.pl/p/3552/po.138342.jpg

The Star Trek franchise has flat-lined and desperately needs resuscitation. Batman needed years to recover from Batman & Robin. Bond will endure but it ceratinly won't flourish under Craig.

http://i3.cn.cz/3/1140031883_craig-daniel-1.jpg

[Advanced Dark]

Haha why did you change your original message? But I agree let's not argue. I just was seeing tinges of something that looked like that old "Superman will own POTC2" conversations I have seen in the past from others. :)

My original message just said "not by me" but it was a pointless post. It was in response to your message.

[TheVileOne]

Franchies can be long lasting but that doesn't mean it can stand against a more current hip genre that's supporting by a larger crowd of young people who drag in families and their friends over and over.

I thought you put me on ignore. You are overrating this genre as well. These movies outside of a few exceptions aren't breaking the bank.

There's no doubt Bond is an icon and a popular franchise that will be around for years to come however no Bond film has come close to making what Hulk or Fantastic Four has on opening weekend.

So what? The Hulk or Fantastic Four neither of them made as much as Die Another Day did total. The Hulk got bad reviews and had one of the worst weekend dropoffs ever if you want to go to the BO argument.

I imagine if Die Another Day was released in 2005 and in the middle of the summer it might've made similar numbers. $47 million in 2002, would be higher in 2005.

Sure neither of those had legs but that kind of vaccuum on opening weekend would suck the life out of any competition and the competition would find it hard pressed to recover in it's second or 3rd weekend when a string of mega-budget movies are coming out one weekend after the next.

Batman Begins, War of The Worlds, Finding Nemo, and numerous others would beg to differ.

Bond is more suited to come out against counter programming and NOT against a large budget action film that tends to draw huge crowds on opening weekend. Fantastic Four or Hulk if it had opened against Casino Royale would have crushed it and while both films would be hurt the Bond film doesn't have the same kind of frantic fan base, nor does it have as broad of a fan base.

Broader fanbase than what? Broader than Fantastic Four and The Hulk? That's arguable.

You are the one that is saying, every 21 year old would unequivocally pick Iron Man over James Bond on opening weekend. You are the one that's saying that Iron Man is BO blockbuster material and James Bond isn't. When James Bond has numerous blockbusters going back to the 60's all the way up to the 00's. Iron Man has not produced one. Nothing Iron Man related has come close to making the money worldwide that Bond has. Bond has proven to have longevity as a cinematic character above all else.

The Marvel & DC brand name is enough to lure millions of kids, young adults, and adults to rush out on opening weekend. Your mistaken if you think I have any ill feelings towards Bond.

When you post what you have regarding Daniel Craig and James Bond, it's hard to believe you don't.

It's a stupid move by Sony or a game of chicken. Sony isn't in a position to do this. However other studios are like when Oceans 13 moved in on Blade Trinity's date or Kill Bill moved in on Punisher. It was clear which film had more power and Marvel should have pushed the studios to move out of the way. There's no reason for Marvel to move away from Bond.

Fantastic Four and Marvel saw reason to move away from War of The Worlds.

[Advanced Dark]

I thought you put me on ignore. You are overrating this genre as well. These movies outside of a few exceptions aren't breaking the bank.



So what? The Hulk or Fantastic Four neither of them made as much as Die Another did total. The Hulk got bad reviews and had one of the worst weekend dropoffs ever if you want to go to the BO argument.

I imagine if Die Another Day was released in 2005 and in the middle of the summer it might've made similar numbers. $47 million in 2002, would be higher in 2005.



Batman Begins, War of The Worlds, Finding Nemo, and numerous others would beg to differ.



Broader fanbase than what? Broader than Fantastic Four and The Hulk? That's arguable.

You are the one that is saying, every 21 year old would unequivocally pick Iron Man over James Bond on opening weekend. You are the one that's saying that Iron Man is BO blockbuster material and James Bond isn't. When James Bond has numerous blockbusters going back to the 60's all the way up to the 00's. Iron Man has not produced one. Nothing Iron Man related has come close to making the money worldwide that Bond has. Bond has proven to have longevity as a cinematic character above all else.



When you post what you have regarding Daniel Craig and James Bond, it's hard to believe you don't.



Fantastic Four and Marvel saw reason to move away from War of The Worlds.

I took you off ignore.

War of the Worlds w/Tom Cruise & Steven Spielberg is a bit more of a threat than James Bond. If War of the Worlds was moving in on Iron Man's date than Iron Man would have been wise to move. A Craig helmed James Bond is not. Also every single big budget Marvel film has opened up HUGE. Every one without a miss. I'm talking Hulk, Fantastic Four, Spiderman 1-3, X-Men 1-3, and even Daredevil. Iron Man is a big budget Marvel film that would fit in to that group. Not as big as X-Men or Spidey but clearly in the same position as FF and above Daredevil. The issue isn't how big the legs of these films are it's how much damage a Marvel film does on opening weekends to the competition. It won't matter if Bond has great word of mouth if Dark Knight opens the next weekend, or Narnia 2 the weekend after that. It'll be buried. I did say above there are cases where Marvel movies should move out of the way...there are also cases where they should not. It really makes no sense for Sony to try to push at Iron Man unless they thought Iron Man might be delayed or have problems with financing...which it won't. It's clear as day to me that Bond will move. It's not a matter of if...but when and I'd imagine a late May date will be the target and there waiting for someother blockbusters to make a move. May might be too difficult with April being more attractive. These type of films need to pull in a large % of their box office in the first weekend...you know that. Sony made a bad move that's all it is.

Edit: Just found this too.

Daniel Craig has signed up for two more James Bond films according to reports.

The 38 year old actor is all set to reprise the role much to many fans disgust no doubt.

However, it seems he’ll be getting paid a hell of a lot less than previous Bond incumbent Pierce Brosnan.

A source told the Sunday Mirror: “Daniel is very much a poor man's 007. He's facing an uphill battle to win over Bond fans before 'Casino Royale' is even released, and it looks like producers got him slightly on the cheap.”

"For a role like this you would actually expect him to get a lot more."

Craig has been paid a paltry £1.5million for his first outing as the suave spy and will receive £3million for the next film.

Brosnan was fired from the role after reportedly requestin £22million to star in ‘Casino Royale’.

...and don't forget Iron Man already had this date set. Sony decided to try to play games. This isn't Punisher or Blade Trinity it's going against...and Bond isn't War of the Worlds.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Daniel Craig rocks. Now let's leave it at that and move on.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Looks like I was right.

[Advanced Dark]

Fantastic Four didn't make $58 million opening weekend.

Can anyone here give me legitimate proof that more people under 21 would answer Iron Man over James Bond?

I mean some legitimate actual proof that they would.

The way I see it, Bond is a pop culture icon to a level that Iron Man has never reached.

Oh I'm sorry 56+ million I'm so far off. :rolleyes:

[Nebins]

Why is a James Bond thread on the Iron Man boards? Seems a bit out of place.

[TheVileOne]

It's here because some people thought it was important to start a smear campaign against James Bond movies and Daniel Craig early in the event that a Bond movie was released at the same time as Iron Man in 2008.

[RedIsNotBlue]

It's here because some people thought it was important to start a smear campaign against James Bond movies and Daniel Craig early in the event that a Bond movie was released at the same time as Iron Man in 2008.

Uhhh no. I am the one who made this thread and that was not my intention at all.