Ya wanna see how... seriously upsetting a rival 'Bond' project is to MGM, well, go no further than our resident, unnamed spy at MGM. Here's what got sent my way faster than any Aston Martin. And I can't say I don't agree with him/her. I'm a big fan of the BOND franchise... the main line. I enjoyed NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and CASINO ROYALE, but I can't say they are anywhere near my faves in the classic series. However, I do take issue with one thing in the MGM spy's piece below... I do believe that AFTER Star Wars Episode One... well Liam Neeson will be... kinda like a walking God on Earth to the demographic that loves action/adventure films. However, I don't see him as Bond, in my mindset. So what do we have here? An angry response, with actual real life facts and thought. Something that according to this, and a couple of other sources, the Times piece was allegedly missing a bit of. Shame that. Well... here ya go...
Harry, as your resident MGM spy, I'm forced to comment on the Sunday Times article posted on your site today. I'll begin by saying that it is rubish! Nothing contained in the article even rises to the level of plausibility! Just more repetitive internet rumors masked as jounalistic fact. To begin with, Sony has been unable to so much as pass memorandum on the production of a Bond movie since the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles handed down an injunction months ago. Any discussion at Sony, or among agents that represent Sony, Kevin McClory, or John Calley about casting, or anything else pertaining to a rival Bond film would be in violation of the court's order. Sony's appeal of the injunction failed last week. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Sony, and stated categorically that the trial judge did not err in his application of the copyright law. Interesting to note that Judge Rafeedie, the presiding judge at the upcoming trial has indicated on the record that he thinks Sony has deliberately misrepresented their case, and that the planitffs (MGM and Danjaq) will likely prevail on all issues. It doesn't portend good things for Sony's Bond ambition. They will lose at trial, and the only issue left really is the amount of damages Sony, and McClory will be forced to pay. As it stands now, McClory will not even retain his rights to remake Thunderball, ad infinitum.
As for the rumors about Connery and Neeson, let's look at this closely. If Sony was aiming their Bond at a younger, "hipper" demographic, as the Sunday Times article claimed, Liam Neeson would be the last person on the list! He has a well-deserved reputation for taking himself too seriously. He's not the kind of flippant individual who would excel as James Bond, nor does he have any inherent selling points that a studio could market. He's not big box office, he doesn't have the nostalgia factor going for him like Connery would, nor does he have the sentimental factor like Brosnan did. In short, we'd be looking at another Timothy Dalton, fine actor, just not Bond material. Then you have the Devlin/Emmerich nonsense, it almost goes without saying that the only reason their name has come up in this matter is because of the recent deal they signed with Sony. At no time have they been specifically involved in any effort to develop a rival Bond film. At most the trades have quoted some friend of a friend who quotes the two as saying they might be "interested". Scorsese was interested in directing Bond 19, but it never rose above a conversation between he and Brosnan at a dinner party! Fact is that McClory would want to maintain some degree of control over any rival Bond film, and he wouldn't have that control with the autonomous efforts of Devlin/Emmerich. How desperate is even Sony to have those two sink their claws into a cinematic icon, when they already disgraced one (Godzilla!).
