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
That MGM are dangling Bond as an enticement for prospective buyers also seems to indicate that a sale would not nullify that arrangement. Whoever ends up buying would inherit the exclusive right.
The McClory ordeal, the CR rights, using SPECTRE — an impressive list of legal victories for Barbara but I feel escaping MGM would possibly be the most monumental task yet.
I have no doubt he could, I have doubt that he's interested at this point in his career to deliver something "shallow".
No more Americanisms please. I didn't care much for the 'you gotta be kiddin' me' in the last one.
[/quote]
THANK YOU!
Americanisms in James Bond is like a thousand exploding plagues. Keep it out.
They have been around since the start.
I am beginning to wonder if the days of standalone, traditional Bond films are over. They seem to want more emotion, drama, and more connections for the films now. We will see with Boyle’s Bond 25, but I doubt it will be something as simple and straightforward as DN or FRWL, even though I’d like for them to return to that route. I think Bond 25 can still be great, but I certainly am afraid of the direction(s) the franchise may be going in.
"Gotta-go"
I never paid attention, but don't like it either now that it's been pointed out. Curious to know what he should have said in their place
If Harry hadn't been a prick and had sold his rights to Cubby we wouldn't be in this increasingly tedious corporate mess.
They don't need a distributor in place to begin filming. They don't even need one in place during filming. Many films are financed and filmed and in the can without a distributor. Many are then shown at Sundance or SxSW, and only then do they sign a distribution deal and get wide release a few months later. If EON needs that distributor for trailers, then they have 12 months from now to get it done.
A bit more detailed article from birth.movies.death who also mentions the details leaked by the Reddit user
You are correct. They likely won't. However, they will likely sell themselves, and so their share goes along with it to the buyer.
It likely had something to do with it in my view as well. So did Babs comments.
No, they can't legally do this. MGM own half of the rights. EON can only deal for their half. Not MGM's.
Correct.
Precisely. In these sort of instances (if what we're reading is true), they have to take it along to a level that it is attractive to a prospective buyer as a template concept, but not move to far forward that it restricts a potential buyer's decision making.
It's really a tricky situation all round, if this is what they've been up to behind the scenes, but quite frankly it doesn't surprise me. Something about this whole thing gave me a feeling that there were big business moves behind it.
And again, are we now meant to believe that the current head of the OO Section has gone completely soft and now requires that all potential new candidates need to be babysat first before they're allowed to complete any mission and earn a kill before gaining admittance into their special branch?
And how is this babysitting thing supposed to work? I thought the whole purpose of being a field agent was that you either had the right stuff (cajones) or you didn't. And if you didn't, you ended up like Miss Moneypenny (in one her less plausible past roles I might add) now working behind a desk. And again, why would the OO Section give a toss about an MI6 agent if they weren't good enough to be admitted to their own branch? This is one reason why I always disliked this mixing up of the MI6 staff with OO Section in the same building nonsense. I much preferred it when they were separate and had their own HQ — you know, just like a secretive division would, not sharing the same bloody roof.
OK. so maybe this isn't the main plot but an insignificant subplot with the "rookie" as the sacrificial lamb. I know some have mentioned Vijay as maybe a possible rookie field agent in the past. I can't recall. I haven't watched that dreadful Carry On Up The Octo-Khyber movie in decades. As Mr Reddit has hinted, there's a role for a female villain too, which suggests there's still a huge piece of the jigsaw missing from what this story is about. Of course, the whole thing could be a complete fabrication and none of this is true. Therefore, feel free to ignore everything that I have just written. On second thoughts, just ignore what I wrote. This Reddit guy is a phoney.
Most films don't cost $250 million (or whatever the final price tag was for SPECTRE. MGM is financially healthier now than it was when it reached that two-picture deal with Sony. But even if Bond 24 has a lower budget, it's going to be much higher than most films MGM makes these days.
There would be the faction that wants Brosnan back for one more (led by you and I of course). There would be another faction lobbying for the return of Dalton. And then there would be a group that wants to turn Bond into some sort of art-house expression of emotional angst. Chaos!
I agree.
Ok sounds good. Who are our millionaires? Please step forward :)