Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

13637394142

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Suivez I'm sure the guy to clarify for us but why cant EON just take their product to another studio if Sony and MGM are dithering/arent up to the job?

    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?
  • Eon (or, technically, Danjaq) owns 100% of the rights to James Bond as a film character but that they signed an exclusive distribution deal with MGM in 1986 - it was originally a 20-year deal but I understand that they extended it some time in the late-90s. (Does anyone know when it's due to end? My guess would be about 2020.) That means that they can't go to another studio. Not sure how MGM's deal with Sony pans out. My guess would be that they've sublicenced the distribution rights for a number of films.

    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.
  • Posts: 12,837
    To all of those saying it's not possible to have a film every two 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?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Eon (or, technically, Danjaq) owns 100% of the rights to James Bond as a film character but that they signed an exclusive distribution deal with MGM in 1986 - it was originally a 20-year deal but I understand that they extended it some time in the late-90s. (Does anyone know when it's due to end? My guess would be about 2020.) That means that they can't go to another studio. Not sure how MGM's deal with Sony pans out. My guess would be that they've sublicenced the distribution rights for a number of films.

    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.

    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?
  • Posts: 9,847
    When talking about the expendables my uncle said it best "this summer we don't have a script but we have ever major action star from the 80's and 90's"

    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
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 12,837
    @Risico007 Is the story good? Not really no, it's fairly generic stuff that's only written to justify the brilliance of Sly and Van Damme beating the shit out of each other while Arnie and Willis drive around shooting people from a smart car and Jason Statham causes Scott Adkins to have his head chopped off by a plane propeller.

    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?
  • Posts: 9,847
    I am not saying No and I will go one step farther then most I would rather have someone like Tony Gilroy (who is good in my opinion and is a step below Mendes) in 2014 over Mendes in 2015 or 2016. I don't get why Eon wants to wait out Craig's era.

    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?
  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    Just found this think its from the other day you may have seen it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22700298#TWEET771810
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Just found this think its from the other day you may have seen it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22700298#TWEET771810

    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The thing that bothers me is, they have a script ready which they have shipped around to at least one director we know of. Is there no other director that can remotely do a good job in bringing that script to life? Why on Earth are EoN waiting for Mendes? It doesn't make much sense.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    doubleoego wrote:
    The thing that bothers me is, they have a script ready which they have shipped around to at least one director we know of. Is there no other director that can remotely do a good job in bringing that script to life? Why on Earth are EoN waiting for Mendes? It doesn't make much sense.

    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.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Creasy47 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    The thing that bothers me is, they have a script ready which they have shipped around to at least one director we know of. Is there no other director that can remotely do a good job in bringing that script to life? Why on Earth are EoN waiting for Mendes? It doesn't make much sense.

    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

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It's crazy and I just don't know what to think anymore. If Mendes does direct, it's likely we'll get a 2015 release, if that's the case what's the hold up with an official announcement? I mentioned earlier that maybe Mendes won't be directing afterall but there's just a few too many things that are strange to me that maybe it's pointless for me to try and rationalise what's going on and just wait and see what happens. This whole thing is just frustrating to me, especially knowing there's a completed scrip.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Even with that, as we sit here calling it 'Bond 24,' questioning 'Will Mendes direct or not?' and 'What year is it going to come out?', EON knows the film beginning to end - probably the title - and they have a very clear idea of who will direct and when it will release, I'm sure.
  • Posts: 12,837
    doubleoego wrote:
    The thing that bothers me is, they have a script ready which they have shipped around to at least one director we know of. Is there no other director that can remotely do a good job in bringing that script to life? Why on Earth are EoN waiting for Mendes? It doesn't make much sense.

    I think maybe since SF did so well, EON see Mendes as a good safe option as he's likely to deliver again.
  • Posts: 2,402
    As long as it isn't Tamahori... Oh, the horror...
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Eon (or, technically, Danjaq) owns 100% of the rights to James Bond as a film character but that they signed an exclusive distribution deal with MGM in 1986 - it was originally a 20-year deal but I understand that they extended it some time in the late-90s. (Does anyone know when it's due to end? My guess would be about 2020.)

    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 :)
    That means that they can't go to another studio. Not sure how MGM's deal with Sony pans out. My guess would be that they've sublicenced the distribution rights for a number of films.

    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.
    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.

    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.

  • @Suivez, thank you for finding this and sharing this! Very interesting (especially their approval rights as you've highlighted) - good work, sir!
  • Posts: 9,847
    But with the billion dollars Skyfall has made surely Bond 24 will be more on location right?
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 6,601
    One of you posted the quote from Wilson, that they were already turned down by half a dozen directors. So maybe its not that they WANT to wait for Mendes but because they cannot get someone else, who is appropriate. Maybe the big name directors are afraid to not make 1.1 billion and will be considered a failure. Mendes at least goes up against himself. I wouldn't underestimate that factor in all of this. Its frustrating nevertheless.

    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.
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Risico007 wrote:
    But with the billion dollars Skyfall has made surely Bond 24 will be more on location right?
    There's no business like show business !
    @Suivez, thank you for finding this and sharing this! Very interesting (especially their approval rights as you've highlighted) - good work, sir!
    Too bad the site stopped archiving as early as 2004. I guess one could write somewhere to obtain more recent reports, or even simply ask directly the questions we're wondering about, but well :)
  • Germanlady wrote:
    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.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I do hope the script takes longer to write, and I am assuming more care and good thought, than Expendables 3, 4, 5, etc. ;)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Germanlady wrote:
    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!
  • Thought @Suivez and some others might be interested to see this. The Q1 filing - it seems that they did have to put up some money into the Skyfall marketing campaign (particularly in home entertainment) and also goes into a little detail about their co-financing arrangement with Sony:
    http://www.metrogoldwynmayer.com/about/pdfQ12013.php
  • edited June 2013 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    The thing that bothers me is, they have a script ready which they have shipped around to at least one director we know of. Is there no other director that can remotely do a good job in bringing that script to life? Why on Earth are EoN waiting for Mendes? It doesn't make much sense.

    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.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Is Penelope Cruz a stellar name? Really?

    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The only upside of Nendes coming back for me is, hopefully he could bring back Michael Shannon to work with again as a villain. I can't wait to his interpretation if general Zod but his role in revolutionary road was brilliant.
  • Posts: 4,619
    I don't get it why the release date is discussed so much around here. 2016 is way too late and 2014 is way too early. I'm willing to bet a thousand dollars with anyone that Bond 24 will be released sometime between October 2015 and December 2015.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    2014 is not way too early. Explain your reasoning.
Sign In or Register to comment.