Bond Franchise Going From MGM To Fox? [Updated]

Published 4 years ago by , Updated July 18th, 2013 at 9:37 am,

daniel craig james bond Bond Franchise Going From MGM To Fox? [Updated]

Update: MGM has contacted the guys over at Film School Rejects directly to let them, and us all, know that this news is incorrect, and that Fox is NOT going to be distributing and marketing the Bond franchise. A source says that MGM owns the Bond franchise, and will announce the release date and distribution details in due time.

When news struck that MGM was in a little bit of financial trouble recently ($3.5 BILLION, little), two big projects/franchises were brought into question: the Bond franchise, and the upcoming adaptation of The Hobbit. With regards to the latter: as predicted, The Hobbit is quite safe, as the film’s other financiers, Warner Bros., stepped in to handle costs. But it appears the Bond franchise isn’t quite so safe.

Well, it’s still safe in that it’ll definitely continue on – let’s face it, it’s the Bond franchise and someone will always be there to pick up the financial reigns on it (it’s a guaranteed money-maker, no?). But fairly significant word comes from the guys over at We Are Movie Geeks who say that the Bond franchise might be packing its bags, loading up the moving van and settling in at la casa de 20th Century Fox.

WAMG reports, via their source, that Bond will be settling in at Fox for its marketing and distribution from now on. If this turns out to be true, that means we will see the next Bond – referred to as Bond 23 until we hear otherwise – with the 20th Century Fox logo in front of it. Just as an FYI, Fox isn’t at all new to the Bond franchise, as up until the last couple of films (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) they handled international and home video distribution for MGM.

20th century fox logo1 Bond Franchise Going From MGM To Fox? [Updated]

Bond bound for Fox?

There’s no word on how this will effect Bond 23, but my guess would be not very much, at least not on the creative side of things. MGM is still handling the production of the next Bond film (and presumably beyond), so for us moviegoers handing over our hard earned cash to see the final product, the only difference will be which logo we see before the movie starts. But nonetheless, it shows the MGM near-bankruptcy DID effect at least one of their two big franchises.

What do you think of the possibility of 20th Fox handling James Bond marketing and distribution instead of MGM? Does it affect your viewing of the movie, or doesn’t it matter who’s handling it as long as the actual movie is still good?

Bond 23 has a tentative release date of sometime in 2011.

Sources: WeAreMovieGeeks (thanks to FilmSchoolRejects)

TAGS: james bond

33 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. Were Doomed!

  2. only time will tell…….tick….tick…..tick

  3. If Buddy Hackett was in charge none of this would have ever happened.

  4. As long as the movie is still good, it really doesn’t matter who releases it. However, with FOX in charge, the chances of it being good have gone down. Let’s hope they don’t turn Bond into Austin Powers.

  5. Nah it could be fine, I assume fox will take this franchise seriously I’m not really much of a fan (dispite bieng scottish) I mean thers alot of cheese in some of those films But I liked the idea of the “No nonsence approach” even though Quantom of solace was terrible..ow it so was, but regardless I hope they keep to the format i.e no silly gadgets please

  6. Great. Ruin the franchise by letting fox take over. Sheesh

  7. It cannot in any way hurt this franchise, which started up again with noble aims in Casino Royale, and then flushed our brains down the toilet in Quantum Of Solace. Which was incidentally the worst Bond film ever made! In all honesty, this has no real impact on Bond at all.

    No need for any fuss whatsoever. Sony are responsible for Bond, they wouldnt want all of their product range in a bad movie would they????

  8. Honestly, to all of you who think this will affect Bond in any way (good or bad) IT’S A DISTRIBUTION DEAL.

    As Ross said in the article, this won’t change anything creatively with the film, Fox have literally no power over things like the script, story, actors, music, cinematography, how many breasts are on screen, how many things blow up, whether or not Bond wears a corset, what kind of food the will be served on set, how the key grips are hired, where the bagel truck will park of any of that crap.

    The ONLY thing they’ll be handling is which cinemas will be showing the next film (all of them) what date that’ll happen on (summer time) and how it’s marketed (“Hey, you know that movie series you’ve been watching for the past 40+ years? Well here’s another one. Give us your money now.”).

    Seriously, stop worrying, it won’t affect a thing.

  9. maybe it should “affect a thing” lol, the second one was a let down in my opinion to a great Royale.

  10. Nah.
    its just a distribution/marketing deal
    Sony hasent given up creative control.

  11. @ dafadge

    No gadgets? It’s a Bond movie it needs the gadgets to make it great. The best part of any bond movie was Q, until he died. John Cleese just couldn’t fill Desmond Llewelyn so they cut him from the ‘more serious’ films.

  12. damit

  13. Hot Fox News chix as Bond girls!!

  14. @Hammie

    hmm its just my opinion but the gadgets got well silly and dumb especially as the series went on I really prefered the no nonesence serious approach and still do

  15. It’s true, one does need to re-think the whole gadget idea when you’re driving around an ice castle in an invisible car.

  16. I dislike the new, “realistic” Bond films. If i want realism, i’ll look at the wall in my room. Soooooooo reaaaal!

    I need Bond with over the top gadgets and absurdly eeeevil villains.

  17. The problem wasn’t the gadgets. The problem is and was the era of hollywood and their utter lack of restaint with respect to anything and their a-hole all or nothing attitude with everything they do. Some gadgets used cleverly and in an intersting way are brilliant. All gadgets, all over the top CGI done all the time, in a cartoonish and childish was is grotesque and dumb as F–k!!

  18. Lord Garth has a point. Had the Bond movies carried on as they were before Casino Royale, this years GI Joe could have easily passed off as a Bond flick. Plus, Casino Royale did rejuvenate the viewership and give the franchise a level of quality it hadn’t seen before.

  19. Quantum of Solace was NOT the worst Bond film, guys. Seriously now, that goes to Moonraker.

    Solace was also considerably better than ALL of Roger Moore’s films, and the oh-so-terrible Die Another Day.

    Fact is, while Brosnan’s era did have some pretty goofy gadgets, they weren’t anywhere near as awful as Moore’s. I wouldn’t mind if they bring in some gadgets to the Craig films, as long as they keep them at least somewhat grounded, like in the early Connery films, Dalton’s two, and Goldeneye.

    As for this Fox debacle. As long as they have no creative control, which is what this article is saying, I think, then I have no problem with it.

  20. Fox is only handling marketing and distribution… how will that affect the actual movie??? Something tells me that there’s a bigger reason why Fox gets such a bad rep. Sure they have plenty of horrible movies, but they also have plenty of really great movies under their belt. So how is that any different from any other studio? I think part of it has been their handling of comic book movies. Since a lot of the people here on this site are comic book movie fans, that is a major factor as to our collective opinions of Fox…But in general, they seem just like any other movie studio, I see good and bad movies coming out of all of them…

  21. Not a big fan of Fox movies after what they did to Watchmen.

  22. Umm, this might not happen…

  23. @Ken

    Don’t forget about their handling of really great TV shows as well. But it’s true, just like any other studio, they come up with some really great stuff sometimes as well as utter crap. And frankly, things are changing at Fox, people high up are being replaced. Fox had a particularly bad year last year and it hasn’t gone unnoticed, things are being shaken up to deal with this. I won’t be surprised if we start to see a change pretty soon.

  24. @Joshi

    Like Firefly… Oh well, why didn’t they make a comic book series or something so we would know how that whole psychic ability thing of hers would pan out?? I’m so curious as to where that show would have went if it had continued… Sorry to sound like a girl, but I’ve always wondered if Kaylee and Jayne would ever have anything together despite the whole Kaylee and Doctor thing…

  25. There was a comic book bridging the gap between the TV show and the movie, but yeah, they should do a continuing comic book for after the movie. I really want to know if Book was once an operative or not.

    And Kaylee and Jayne? I know he kind of had a thing for her, but I don’t see Kaylee doing that (not unless she was only in it for the sex, which let’s face it, she is capable of), Jayne isn’t smart enough to steal her away from Simon.

  26. Yah, but I just felt that Jayne was real sincere with his feelings for her, you could see it in how he would protect her, even when she didn’t want him to. With Simon he just seemed like the “charming guy” picking out the cute single chick to hit on… but I guess in a way, they kind of have a big brother little sister relationship, but sometimes it seems more than that, well, at least from Jayne…

  27. Fox do like to bugger stuff up and they are run by a complete and utter mentalist. This would not be good for Bond in any way, shape or form.

  28. @Ken

    I don’t know, Simon didn’t really show much interest in Kaylee until she showed interest in him (which can be seen as unforgivable because Kaylee’s awesome, but then he did have a sleeper assassin as a crazy prodigal sister to distract him). I wouldn’t exactly say he was picking out the cute single chick, she picked him out.

    And in the movie at least, he did become more sincere with his feelings. Plus, as you say, I feel her and Jayne had more of a brother/sister dynamic (with Mal as the pissed off father).

  29. @Joshi

    But that’s exactly what I mean, he didn’t even care until it was apparent that she was available, it seems more like a love out of convenience more than anything else. Jayne seems to put a lot of effort into trying to keep Kaylee safe… But I don’t know, perhaps I got it right the first time and they have a brother/sister relationship, but either way, I didn’t like Simon for her, there’s something self-serving about him, and she’s far too cute and sweet for that… lol

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!