Could the James Bond Delay Actually Be a Good Thing?

We've been told over and over for decades that James Bond will return, and implicit in that promise is that in the in-between time won't be long at all. The turmoil at MGM has changed all that, however; not only has the next Bond film lost Sam Mendes as the director, but now, according to an irate Harry Knowles, development on the movie has stopped completely (not to be confused with when it stopped indefinitely). Is that really so bad, though?

I mean, let's be serious: at some point, there will be a new Bond film. It may even be this one! It just won't be this one right away, and I think that's actually a good thing.

Yes, Daniel Craig was terrific in Casino Royale, but that entry in the series came after a very necessary recharge of four years since the last Bond installment, Die Another Day. (That's what passes for a long break when it comes to this franchise.) Royale's goodwill was squandered with its follow-up, the rushed, tedious Quantum of Solace, which cost tens of millions more than Casino Royale yet grossed less, making it the first Bond film since 1997 that failed to outdraw its predecessor.

As time passes, I see two potential benefits for the franchise: people will have forgotten about the misstep of Quantum of Solace, while the producers behind Bond will enjoy the kind of off time they haven't had since before Royale -- an interim that will hopefully prove just as fruitful. (And maybe then they can give it back to Martin Campbell, who directed two of the best Bond films? Here's hoping.)

How bad is MGM off right now? [AICN]