It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As does this one:
A few micro-second shots with both of these I haven't seen before...
Yep 100% agree. I'm already excited, I don't need to see any more footage
Agreed. We have enough between the 2 trailers, multiple TV spots, the music video etc.
Spectre made $880 million at the box office, more than Casino and Quantum and $120m shy of equalling Skyfall. For the Studios I think you'll find they were very happy with Spectre.
We see Blofeld in prison so I find it hard to believe they won't reference Spectre events to explain that.
Very nice.
Apparently, Sony didn't make a lot of money from their involvement with the franchise, even if they essentially bankrolled four movies. They definitely got their investment back, but beyond the distribution fee, MGM (and Eon) commanded a large cut from the gross. But for Sony, it was a big prestige thing, that also allowed them to promote Blu-ray at the time Casino Royale got released on home video (and also in the movie, as, for some reason, the surveillance footage in Nassau that Bond watches is recorded on Blu-ray)
The same thing happened for Paramount and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Lucasfilm owns the film, Paramount had the exclusive distribution rights for five films (the rights for the fifth one were bought back by Disney a few months after the Lucasfilm deal), but there were still negotiations, and it wasn't a huge moneymaker for the studio, per Wikipedia.
Once again, it was almost impossible that the film would flop, but the final deal for this entry was that Paramount needed it to make over $400m and then had very little financial incentive if it made more (it made $790m in all). Once again, it was more of a prestige thing to have two out of the three biggest releases of 2008 (they also distributed Iron Man) and to have one of the most financially successful films of all time (even if they didn't particularly benefit from it financially).
There was a neat (small) section of F9 involving Helen Mirren that was very Bondian, music and all.
https://www.notimetodie.dhl/en
The deal Paramount made with LucasFilm must have been more lucrative than you put it, because they still own all the distribution rights to the Indiana Jones home media for the first four films (for which they just released the 4K disc set) and the Young Indiana Jones series. You won’t even find those on Disney+, because that’s all on their platform Paramount+. And though Disney bought off the production/distribution rights to the fifth film, Paramount still gets an undisclosed cut of the profits probably in similar manner to THE AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3, where their studio logos are still present. In fact, the former is currently on Paramount+, as opposed to being a Disney+ exclusive like so many other Disney titles.
It wouldn’t surprise me if we see Paramount’s logo on Indy 5, likely to transition to a mountain at whatever location Indy is at as traditionally done in the four films.
https://deadline.com/2021/06/dune-many-saints-of-newark-sopranos-release-date-changes-warner-bros-1234781687/
I wouldnt be surprised if NTTD pulls forward a week in the US, to Oct 1st. Have those imax screens to itself for longer.
The deal Paramount made with Lucasfilm was a course correction to what happened to Alan Ladd Jr. with Star Wars, as he had accepted granting Lucasfilm the intellectual property (including merchandising) and full rights to the sequels, at the time the board at Fox didn't even believe in the project. Ladd accepted these terms to get the budget lower and the board happier. After Star Wars performed slightly better at the box office than The Other Side of Midnight, the board rewarded him by asking him so step down, when they realized they had very little control over the sequels.
The boss at Paramount didn't want to meet the same fate, so, right from the start, he asked for full distribution rights in perpetuity for five movies when he was approached for a new potential Lucasfilm franchise. And the trilogy stuck to the terms of the initial deal.
When Lucas, Spielberg and Ford were ready to return to Indiana Jones, a few things were renegotiated, as the leverage was then mostly in favor of the main talents whose involvement was expected. Paramount didn't try to bleed Lucasfilm and co. dry, but took a rather backseat approach to producing the movie, adapting terms when it went over budget.
It WOULD surprise me, and it would surprise everybody if the Paramount mountain was at the beginning of Indy V. This is not at all the same situation as with Iron Man 3 or The Avengers, which already were in development by the time Disney bought Marvel and Paramount had more cards to play in negotiations. Notice that the latest editions for Star Wars VII-IX haven't added the 20th Century Fox fanfare, even if the main Star Wars theme was written to segue naturally from the fanfare and Disney owns Fox. But it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a castle with a tower, mirroring the main Disney logo.
And anterior deals are the main reason for which there is no Hulk standalone film in development. Universal handled the two existing films and had rights over the sequels. So, Marvel can shoe Hulk into films involving other characters, whether it is about Thor or the Avengers, but they'd have to find some settlement with Universal if they wanted to have "Hulk" in the title.
All of this to say that studios don't necessarily have ironclad contracts with production companies, that nest them almost all of the profits and the control. MGM hasn't got one with Eon (partly due to the situation they had inherited from UA, which was always more conciliant with artists and producers), and neither did Sony Pictures with MGM from Casino Royale to Spectre. And the balance of power can always shift at various points, giving one party more leverage for negotiations and renegotiations.
Yeah, I think it is almost a certainty bits of Spectre are brought up — much as all the Craig ones reference events from other films. In fact, I'd hazard a guess it is even more than the rest since this was seems to really be leaning into the sequel aspect due to bringing back the girl and starting up right where the last one ended.
“Only in theaters” is a nice little gesture towards the streaming industry.
Comparison. Try walk away with this one. Haha..
I don't know if it was a design that was shelved or if it was only being used in certain places, but I liked the idea of an actor's final film using a similar poster design to that of his first.