Rumors circulated this week that cash-strapped MGM had forced producers to pull the plug on development of the next James Bond movie, officially known as "Bond 23." The studio is currently drowning under $4 billion in debt and looking for a buyer, complicating the fate of all MGM-related productions. According to "insiders familiar with the situation," however, Bond 23 is still alive and well — albeit on ice until production resumes next April. That hasn't stopped bloggers from asking whether it's time to put 007 to rest for good. (Watch an ITN News report about the future of James Bond)

Live and let die: Though Bond 23 actually sounds "quite good," says Stuart Heritage in The Guardian, the spy series needs to die: "James Bond isn't James Bond any more." He's simply a "tedious exercise in relentless product placement transparently modeled on Jason Bourne." Why not let the character "die with dignity while he still can"?
"Is James Bond past his sell-by date?"

No quantum of solace here: News that James Bond could die is just "depressing," says Scott Tunstall in Flick Sided. While Quantum of Solace may have fallen "a bit flat," Casino Royale was "brilliant." And I'm excited to see how Daniel Craig would tackle the role of Bond "his third time out." If they kill Bond, I'm going to need a drink. "Shaken, not stirred, of course."
"Bond 23 gets the axe"

Tomorrow never dies — and neither does Bond: Whether you like Bond or not, says blogger Jim in, the "movies are just too popular to die." Even if MGM folds on the franchise, "some company will undoubtedly come to the rescue." The real question is whether a new studio would keep Bond 23's current creative lineup. It would be a blow to lose director Sam Mendes' sure-to-be-brilliant vision and Craig's acting chops.
"MGM cancels James Bond 23"