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
Regarding your point about MGM. That unfortunately is the area where I have concerns post-B25. I am of the opinion that MGM is not viable as a standalone entity, given the behemoths it is up against. Yes, Megan Ellison is a rich woman and provides some 'cover', but ultimately this is a tough game they're playing in an industry that is consolidating and changing dramatically. So as I've mentioned previously, I just wish they would get on with it and either 'sell', 'merge' or IPO, because ultimately that is what they are going to have to do. Kicking the can down the road will only result in more uncertainty between B25 and B26, which is precisely why this is is only a 'one picture' deal at this point - the future is precarious and uncertain at this time. Having worked in an organization once that underwent similar drastic changes (acquisition vs. IPO), I can also add that everything you read/hear about MGM in the next few years will be 'smoke and mirrors' designed to market themselves positively to potential suitors or the market.
I certainly agree with you about how precarious the movie industry is at this very moment. I mean Disney is about to buy 20th Century Fox. Tech companies like Amazon and Apple are forever changing the entertainment industry as well, and we have seen those names coming up before regarding Bond. So yes, it's quite a lavish shit mess atm.
And I too want Bond 25 to be done exclusively by one film company alone: Being the 50% co-owner of the Bond franchise next to EON/Danjaq, and doing everything....from marketing, promotion to the full global distribution.
So yes, I agree with you that it would be better if Bond will either be sold completely or acquired by a new company completely. However the Bond franchise still is a very strong brand. And if you were standing in Gary Barber's shoes you wouldn't just 'sell' this lucrative brand, if that brand can actually be used to facilitate the financial (turnover, profit) improvement of the company, no matter how small that chance might be.
Perhaps this is also the reason why EON Productions is not like Kathleen Kennedy's Lucasfilm Ltd.: EON still is a family company, has the other 50% of Bond rights, and therefore every new company has to deal with them. The legal complexities of the Bond brand are enormous and that perhaps result in other bigger parties not willing to burn their fingers on it.
Ahh well, let's see what happens.....
I think we could do with a bit more clarity behind the scenes and long for a larger studio to buy out MGM (keep in mind that is quite different from buying 50% of the 'Bond rights' only, although ultimately the result is the same. I see the two scenarios used interchangeably here and that could cause confusion). Perhaps eventually a studio will buy out MGM just to get their hands on 50% of those lucrative 'Bond rights'. They would have to be a viable partner with EON though and perhaps they have rights of first refusal on such a deal.
In a way this reminds me of Michael Jackson's problems with SONY regarding the ATV royalty back catalogue. He was always a thorn in their side because he had 50% of the rights and claimed that they were sabotaging his work to force him to sell those rights. Eventually they were sold, but only after he passed.
Then start another petition ... ?
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/james-bond/53295/james-bond-25-us-distributor-deal-nearly-done
Not only that. Universal already "tested" the Dutch market for the 24th Bond flick "SPECTRE". For most other overseas territories Sony Pictures was the distributor, except for The Netherlands: There it was Universal.
Personally, I would say that Sony Pictures are not the biggest favourites, since they already "lost" the US Market. And given all the SonyLeaks-sh*t, I would bet on either Universal Pictures or Warner Bros. fighting heavily over this.....
Universal could use a good replacement for Jason Bourne: Being James Bond. Whereas Warner Bros. could use their own spy franchise after "The Man From UNCLE".
I agree with a lot of what you say but I'm not so sure that Villeneuve is the right man for the job, either. After all, Blade Runner 2049 has just flopped at the box office, which only gleaned a mere $31.5 million during its opening weekend, despite having a budget of $150 million. As a percentage, that's even slightly worse that its predecessor. Unless its BO drastically improved afterwards, which I believe it did not, then Blade Runner 2049 was a critical success but not one that was widely shared by the cinemagoing public. Bringing in its worldwide figure might sound better than it actually is, especially as the studio only makes a third of the ticket sales outside its domestic BO. Domestic sales is what really counts for the studio. Still, I read somewhere that it was drastically cut from being a 4-hour movie down to its theatrical length, which might explain its incoherent story-line. I know some here think it a masterpiece, sadly I'm not one of them. But I digress.
One thing in Villeneuve's favour is his logistic ability to juggle a huge production and bring a movie of this size on budget. Steven Soderbergh is a good choice IMHO, but his failure to get the original Man From UNCLE movie off the ground would worry me if I was investing in Bond 25. I think Steven Soderbergh might be better suited to smaller budget niche movies as well. Also, why take a gamble on Demange when our very own Gareth Evans has proven he's a great action director? Personally, I'd rather see Bond 25 go to Gareth Evans if Eon are willing to take a risk on an untested director. I think Nolan is out of the equation until Eon decide on the next reboot; he said so much himself. So who does that leave? Answers on a postcard...
This whole distribution business seems unreasonably messy to a layman like me. So Spectre was distributed thearically by MGM + Sony in the US. Theatrical distribution in the Netherlands was done by Universal, Bluray/DVD distribution in the Netherlands was done by Fox. Warner distributed the movie in Turkey and Walt Disney Studios Sony Pictures Releasing (a joint venture between Walt Disney Company CIS [ The Walt Disney Company's Russian subsidiary] and Sony Pictures Russia) distributed it in Russia.
Is Paramount really the only one of the big 6 Hollywood studios that didn't distribute Spectre somewhere in some form?
Sources: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=bond24.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/companycredits
The Walt Disney Company CIS, LLC is one of The Walt Disney Company's international subsidiaries. The Walt Disney Company CIS was founded in April 2006. It is headquartered in Moscow, the capital of Russia.
In 2007, Walt Disney Company CIS and Sony Pictures Russia created the joint venture of Walt Disney Studios Sony Pictures Releasing CIS. It is they who distributed Spectre in Russia.
That's only partly true. Universal Pictures NL is the distributor of all Sony Pictures productions in the Netherlands. UniversalNL bought SonyPictures NL (or at least their distribution rights) a couple of years ago.
I wonder why the big three studios currently in the running didn't (reportedly) get the job of US distribution? A few weeks back when the Annapurna/MGM expanded arrangement broke, it was still apparently up in the air (otherwise they could have made a combined announcement at that time).
Perhaps there just isn't enough profit in it for them?
One day we will know what's really been happening here. It may take a few years but the truth will come out at some point.
The fact is, we don't know the specifics of the deals that EON had at the time with UA - and what EON currently has with MGM and now Annapurna... You were right about DAF, but I also remember that back when they were casting Bond for CR, MGM and Sony/Columbia wanted a more well known established named for Bond to take over for Brosnan ie: Clive Owen, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor.. and they even considered reopening lines of communication to renegotiate a 1 film deal to bring Brosnan back - but it was Babs and MGW that stuck to their guns, and said Craig was their guy, and the studios had to go with it.... Personally, I think the studios have "some" influence over casting and production team hires - but when it comes to making a final decision, I believe the buck firmly stops with EON.
Wow, I would rather have Hitler back.
i dont remember it being close to happening - but there were reports that it was being considered..
When Germany was reunited?
Den of Geek is just summarizing Deadline (but you have to scroll all the way to the end of see that, they do their best to hide it).
MGM (via John Calley) also wasn't fond of Dalton in the 1990s. You can argue whether Dalton quit, quit before he was purshed or whatever, but Calley eventually got his way. And did not endear himself to Barbara Broccoli.
Under this scenario, the "new" MGM would still be small compared other media goliaths. But it might be stronger than what we have now.
Clearly, MGM and Annapurna are getting closer. Originally, Annapurna was to release MGM's Death Wish remake. Then, MGM and Annapurna created their joint venture for distribution. Death Wish now is to be the first film distributed by the joint venture.
A really astonishingly tasteless remark, I'll give you that.
About getting Brosnan back? I know, right?
The use of dark humor simply is not for everyone.