‘James Bond 23′ Release Date Announced, Sam Mendes Officially Directing
Jan 11, 2011 by Ben MooreDo you like this story?
‘James Bond 23′, starring Daniel Craig and directed by Sam Mendes, has officially been announced. Shooting will begin late 2011 with a release date of November 12, 2012.
After months of whispers, rumors, and speculation about the fate of James Bond 23, we finally have an official announcement from EON Productions and MGM Studios regarding its star, its writers, its director, and its much anticipated release date.
It’ll come as no surprise that Daniel Craig is returning to fill Bond’s very expensive shoes, with a screenplay by frequent Bond writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (as well as newcomer John Logan of The Aviator fame). Also unsurprising is the announcement that the oft-rumored Sam Mendes (American Beauty) will be directing.
Check out the press release below:
Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of EON Productions, together with Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, Co-Chairmen and Chief Executive Officers of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., today announced that the 23rd James Bond film will commence production in late 2011 for a worldwide release on November 9, 2012.
Daniel Craig will be returning as the legendary British secret agent, with Sam Mendes directing a screenplay written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan.
We reported last month that MGM and EON was keen on releasing a James Bond movie in 2012, otherwise known as the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. No., and that an announcement regarding that film and its particulars was likely forthcoming.
Besides the specific November release date — since Daniel Craig, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Sam Mendes were already all but a lock — the other news in this press release is that Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) is off screenwriting duties and John Logan is on. Does this mean that the “shocking” work Morgan did on the film was thrown out entirely, or has it just been expanded upon by Logan? Only the ghost of Albert Broccoli knows for sure.
The last Bond film, The Quantum of Solace, was a fairly disappointing venture in my opinion — especially when juxtaposed next to the previous outing, Casino Royale. I can only speak for myself when I say that I’m cautiously optimistic about Bond 23. Sam Mendes proved with Road to Perdition that he can stage some pretty intense, not to mention gorgeous, action scenes. Hopefully he can do the same with James Bond, minus some of the more depressing aspects. (Though a little sadness and emotion in a James Bond movie can go a long way, e.g. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.)
James Bond 23 hits theaters November 9th, 2012, fifty years, one month, and four days after the first James Bond movie. Keep your eyes on the main page for more Bond news as we get it.
After reading this article, people also read:
Loading ...
IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME!!
Sweet, this is good news
I think Sam Mendes can totally pull this off.
2012 is going to be one momentous year for anticipated films. I hate to wish my life away, but I cannot wait.
2012 is ridiculously stacked when it comes to anticipated films.
Yeah, I had wrote in another article on this site that the 2012 doomsday prophecies will likely come true due to all the geek’s and fanboy’s heads exploding that year. If my head doesn’t explode, then my wallet’s going to be hurting. Might as well just camp out at the theater because something fantastic is coming out just about every weekend.
Hm, another drama director like Marc Forster… Should I make the same prediction I made for QoS?? I really think they should get an accomplished director that has proven to be able to make action movies with deep plots and well developed characters…
Sam Mendes directed Daniel Craig through one of his most memorable and interesting roles in Road to Perdition, which makes the reunion even sweeter in my opinion. I agree about the emotion being good for Bond and Craig can deliver such turbulence in his work. I’m looking forward to the results even with its disappointing predecessor.
Yee-haw!
And its not in 3D, love it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that at this point.
Did they not learn any lessons from the diabolically awful QOS?!
Sam Mendes is a great director, but he isn’t am action director, and that’s what this film needs.
And why are they using the same 2 script writers???? They wrote 2 for Brosnan and these last 2 for Craig. Get some fresh blood please!!!
To be fair to Mendes, the action scenes in Road to Perdition are short but sweet. Also, I agree about the screenwriters — they’ve only been involved in writing one quality Bond film, in my opinion, and they had a lot of help from Paul Haggis on that one. (Not to mention the Casino Royale novel.)
Yes but you literally pick out all the sequences in CR that Haggis wrote, the decent dialogue for a start. Why are Wade and Purvis still doing this? Why can’t they just hire one really good writer instead of having two bad ones and having to bring in a third writer to mop up there messes?
Doesnt make good financial sense to me.
I could write a better film than QOS with the acculminated crap underneath my finger nails as the main plot! God I hate that film! It is utter dregs.
Is Sam Mendes a great director? Yes.
Is Daniel Craig a good actor? yes
Is he a good Bond? Remains to be seen, in CR yes, in QOS he was a thug in a tux.
Are they writers any good? NO!!!!!!! otherwise they would have to bring in others to help them.
Will this new film be better than QOS? It literally couldnt be any worse.
Oh, and lets go for a decent theme song this time. Chris Cornell’s You Know My name was awesome, that garbage they put in QOS made my ears want to be sick. Plus, maybe some use of the Bond theme, considering it isnt used at all in QOS.
QOS is nowhere near the trainwreck of a movie you are making it out to be. Its a wrapup, an epilogue of CR, Bond in revenge mode. It served its purpose and is truly a Bond film unlike any other. So hate it all you want, it plays off well in my mind, it was never meant to stand alone on its own.
It certainly is a Bond film like no other. Bond is a cold blooded murderer without a hint of class.
Sorry, that’s not Bond to me.
Vic
QOS, was the ending of CR. You have to look at that film as the second half.
That doesnt mean I can forget about the terrible script, stupid story, awful editing, amateur directing and crappy action sequences. Not to mention the awful CGI, nasty theme song. And numerous other faults.
Hey what exactly was wrong with Quantum of Solace? It didn’t have a rubbish plot, in fact I thought the film opened up whole loads of possibilities for the next few films. Huge shadowy organisation, filled with influential people, more villains to take down – it certainly looks more refined than SPECTRE from the older days.
It certainly wasn’t like a typical Bond film – much lower on charm and the humour, a little heavy with the action in some ways but personally I didn’t think it was a bad film at all, just that it may be disappointing to some.
I believe my above comment describes exactly what is wrong with QOS.
I honestly think that the movie was INTENTIONALLY made with all of the aspects many people disliked about the movie. It was purposefully dark, low on charm and lacking in generally every characteristic we’ve come to love and expect from our favorite secret agent. In QoS, Bond is, as one person here put it, “a thug in a tux’.
But this was deliberate!
Between Casino Royal and Quantam, we are meant to be watching the development and transformation of James Bond from – more or less – an ordinary person into 007…warts and all!
I believe the ugliness, the…”thugishness” that was portrayed on screen in QoS was meant to serve, ONLY and SPECIFICALLY, as a counterpoint to the suave, debonair, charismatic, yet emotionally distant and aloof spy he will – out of necessity – become. QoS chronicled the path Bond travelled to become the spy we love while, at the same time, showing us why he chose to become a man who never forms any true or lasting connections with other human beings. QoS shows us the man he becomes when he does!
If for no other reason, QoS should, in my humble opinion, be seen as a worthy entry into the Bond universe on the merits that it shows the road taken and allows us to appreciate what Bond went through; It allows us to be thankful that Bond was able to overcome his trials and – as we’ll no doubt see in subsequent films – truly evolve into the Bond that was already fully formed when we first met him as played by Sean Connery.
QoS shows us exactly the kind of James Bond we DON’T want to see and how dangerously close he came to becoming, and how easily he could have remained, a “thug in a tux” rather than rising above.
As such, QoS, is a vital part of the James Bond mythos as it allows us the opportunity to see why and how Bond became “Bond”! Shaken, not stirred.
Very well said. I 100% agree with your comments. While it didn’t reach the heights of Casino Royale, QoS was world’s better than the outright silliness of any other Bond film. It is a worthy bridge to what comes next in the Bond universe.
Sorry, but Bond is meant to be about silliness. I agree that there should be a bit more grit in a modern Bond, but taking out iconic characters like Monneypenny and Q (both characters would work well in the new franchise), turning Bond into an unrefined thug, no gadgets, very little humour.
In CR it worked, although there was still the odd one liner. QOS was a film totally devoid of personality.
correct!
Great news!!! but I think its about time the producers got Bond out of his depressing mood and make the most of Daniel Craig’s talent..the best Bond since Connery!
I agree. Casino Royale is, when looking back at it, my favourite bond movie. It came down like a bomb during a time I didn’t think Bond could get any more silly.
For me it all boils down to them having better character development and a more detailed and thoroughly worked plot. Casino Royale is lightyears ahead of Quantum of solace in that case.
sickkk bout time
Monneypenny and Q.
Sort it out!
Why do people keep comparing “Casino” and “Quantum”? I always thought they were the same story, just broken up in two parts.
It is like comparing the three “Lord of the Rings” movies. They are the same story.
Why not just break down any movie in to two or more parts, and then compare them against each other?
How was the second half of “Dr. No” compared to the first half? What about the middle part of “True Grit”, and then compare it with the first and third part?
A 12-hour story “Lord of the Rings” is a 12-hour story, not really three films to be compared with each other. The last two thirds were not sequels. They were the last two-thirds of the story.
Ron
Lotr has one cast of characters throughout all 3 films, CR and QOS have 3 characters in common. It may be a sequel but they are separate films.
Ron,
Because the two films are VERY different from each other, despite having sharing a continuing story.
Vic
QoS, did wrap up the Vesper aspect of CR.
His rage during QOS was because he didn’t know the truth. He finds out during the final scenes of QoS.
CR/Qos, play like a 2 part Bond epic. Love them both, prob up there in my Bond top 5 films.
The last act of Casino Royale, was a world of ball busting, girlfriend dying misery for James. Leaving us all to wonder what Bond would do to those that killed Vesper,,?
I don’t know what you expected from QOS Vic, but Bond was clearly in (getting justice and finding out the truth) mode. And I was loving it!!!
The last scenes in QOS, when Bond finds out the truth about Vesper, you can tell it provided the closure he was obsessing over.
The ending left Bond and M, grounded in trust, and solidified Bond as a full 007 agent.
Note how the iconic gun barrel opening came right after that final scene.
^
Now we can move on the classic villains/plots/gizmos we all come to expect from the franchise. As long as MGM pays there bills.
790,
I hope you’re right about the next film. To me this just wasn’t Bond. It was freaking Jason Statham or Steven Seagal in a revenge flick. It’s been done before in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and George Lazenby still managed to be “Bond” while he went through something similar.
Vic
Lol, well yeah it was a revenge flick, but a Bond revenge flick is a little less predictable then a Steven Seagal revenge flick,,,
As much as I love a Seagal revenge flick. He should own, his own genre by now. Damn
I cannot believe people are defending QOS. I’m actually stunned. It is my most hated film of all time. I have seen every other Bond film 10 times or more, I know them back to front, word for word, I have read all of the books (Flemming, Gardener, Benson, Faulks).
I saw QOS 2 and a half times, first time at the cinema, second time on DVD. I thought, I’ll give it one more try, and turned it off halfway through.
I’d rather watch a leathery Roger Moore defuse a bomb while dressed as a clown, that’s more Bond than QOS!
ha ha ! couldnt have said it better. Even I forced myself to watch QoS thrice just hoping maybe something might click..but sadly a very forgettable Bond movie..great injustice to Craig’s talent and charisma.