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
I find a lot of this 'who owns what' malarkey rather dull so I dont really pay as much attention to it as I should do.
How are the rights to make Bond pictures divided again? Do EON and Sony own the rights 50/50 or something? Didnt Sony buy up Mcclorys rights and the rights to CR?
If its EON who own it 100% after the success of SF cant they just hawk Bond around town for the highest bidder to bankroll the film rather than forever being embroiled in this studio politics bullshit?
I know what you mean about the problems of being tied to a major studio but it's the lesser of two evils - it would be a fiasco if they had to go round Hollywood pitching themselves every 2-3 years. The UA/MGM relationship has largely worked out very well over the years.
http://www.hitfix.com/news/expendables-3-gets-summer-2014-release-date
2010, 2012 and now 2014. Why exactly can't Bond be doing that again?
Well yes I suppose you are right that it would be a lot of effort to constantly have to be pitching themselves to a studio (although with the success of SF surely it would be the studios pitching themselves to EON?) just a shame that they seem to pick partners who are a bit shaky financially. Or are all the studios in the same boat?
The only thing the article should do is show that films are still being announced for next year so bond 24 could come out next year
But just because the story isn't very good, that doesn't mean that it didn't take time to write.
The point is that these films, whatever your opinion of them, still take time. Like it or not, Expendables probably took around the same time to write as Bond 24, and they also have to find directors, go through pre production, etc.
And yet they've managed to keep a consistent release schedule since 2010. Why can't Bond do that, especially after SF being the biggest film of 2012?
Surely at least one talented director besides Mendes would be interested?
I just think having Gilroy Refn heck even Ang Lee would be ok if Bond 24 came out next year I mean Craig and company did amazing job with both Quantum of Solace and Sky Fall's scripts (both have their weak points ) surely Bond 24 would be no different?
Yet another site quoting Deadline, which we've spoken about for quite some time now.
On another note, I find it highly hard to believe that there isn't a single director out there who would want to direct 'Bond 24,' especially after the success of SF. With that, are they really willing to wait until 2015 or whenever for Mendes to helm? If so, they're incredibly confident he'll release just as good a picture as SF. I hope they don't get stuck on him and think he is the only one who can put out a good Bond movie.
As time goes on and out of the countless thoughts I've posted about all of this, that's the mindset I'm starting to think: there's not a single director they're willing to go for? Instead, they want to push the film back further and wait for Mendes? He won't be around forever.
Neither will Craig One thing I want to point out we may still be calling it bond 24 but I doubt that is what people at EON are calling it remember by October 2009 Bond 23 was titled (and referred to behind the scenes) as Once Upon a Spy so I am sure people are calling it by its working title which I am hoping is Risico :D
I think maybe since SF did so well, EON see Mendes as a good safe option as he's likely to deliver again.
Wow, I never thought I would find it (given the official MGM website has no archive - MGM resorts have all of them for years, MGM studios have only the last quarter report...), but look at this :
[url="
http://www.getfilings.com/o0001193125-04-027353.html
"]
http://www.getfilings.com/o0001193125-04-027353.html
[/url]
I'll consider it's a reliable archive of the 2003 report.
In it, we learn the deal is extended 15 years from the previous scheduled date (so that would be 2021 ?), and we learn in particular that's far more than just a distribution deal : MGM has their word to say on who plays Bond and who directs him, in particular (see page 9 of the report).
Also, it was said during the investor phone call a few months ago (no archive for that), that the MGM % and EON % of profits would remain secret, on special request of EON (ie : MGM can't reveal how much they earn with Bond, since elementary computations would reveal how much EON is left with !).
When I have time, I'll try to read later ones :)
As I wrote above, last info I could find hinted the deal ended with Bond 24. Hence all the rumors about Bond 24 & Bond 25 being worked upon rather weird in this context. Or it means Sony has extended it, but the backdrop of the fight about Sony Entertainment should not help.
Yes but with Skyfall it's the first time I remember reading someone saying directly during the marketing campain that budget problems prevented them to do what they initially planned (it was Deakins saying in an interview they had to create the Shanghai building scene not as they expected because budget cuts prevented them to shoot on real location). Before that, it was only hearsay (like Boyle saying Mendes told him budgets cuts happened during the shooting), + all the papers on "rumors of" budget cuts during the actual shooting, or well after the fact.
So maybe some people in the production are not as pleased of what happened during Skyfall's shooting as what we think they are.
What i was always thinking is - DC does his play till 5th January. So - even if they started right away - wouldn't it be too late already? They always start shooting at the end of the year. They can never do with a post production time of hardly 3 months. IF that is so, 14 had died at the end of last year, when DC decided to do the play. And he wouldn't do that, if it was not in agreement with the prods.
I think it would certainly be possible @Germanlady - GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and CR all started principal photography in January for an Autumn release.
It's still in play for next year, and I'd gather if the film was to be released then Craig ould have done this play anyway. As you mention, January starts are the norm, with the November start of Skyfall being an exception. In fact Casino Royale started production on the 30th January!
http://www.metrogoldwynmayer.com/about/pdfQ12013.php
For the very simple reason that Bond has been upgraded from a big blockbuster to very very big 1 Billion Dollar potential. I've always said that 'big names' can be a huge promotional assett. Barbara and Michael see that now. Javier Bardem helped a great deal for that. And now another stellar name is being rumoured: Penelope Cruz. Not to mention Sam Mendes' name and the crew he can attract. Big star actors want to be in a Bond film.
So it's only logical that Sam Mendes returns. Regardless how some people think of the movie and its plot, overall, globally, the movie critically is as good as CR. For me personally I prefer SF a tiny bit more than CR. Others slightly prefer CR over SF. But it are tiny nuances. Fact is: CR has a 7.9 on IMDB and SF has a 7.8 on IMDB.
Bond is now, more than in previous years, Sony's and MGM's precious 'baby'. Spiderman and LOTR used to be that. Not anymore.
In Spain maybe but she's hardly going to get joe public flocking in is she?
Don't get me wrong shes very solid and I won't be devastated if she's the Bond girl but its more important to spend big on the villains. It's an Anthony Hopkins or a Christoph Waltz as the villain that will get people excited to see the film.