54 replies to this topic

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Oh my...

http://www.comingsoo...ews.php?id=4381

Reuters reports that Sony, which owns Sony Pictures (Columbia, Screen Gems, Sony Classics) is in advanced talks to buy MGM with two buyout firms in a deal that could be worth close to $5 billion.

The buyout firms, which include Texas Pacific Group and Providence Equity Partners, are in discussions with billionaire financier Kirk Kerkorian to buy his stake of more than 70 percent in MGM. Current talks involve the three partners splitting a $1.5 billion cash payment and borrowing the rest to finance the deal.

MGM has such big franchises as James Bond and The Pink Panther.

______

Thoughts on this?

[Dmitri Mishkin]

And the original Reuters piece...

http://www.reuters.c...storyID=4898571

Sony initiated the talks, the sources said, partly because it wants worldwide distribution rights to MGM vast movie library that includes the James Bond movies.

[Icephoenix]

It scares me actually. SONY is the last corporation I wanted to buy out MGM! They were the ones who paired with McClory to get the rights to the Bond films, created the disgustingly horrid xXx, and made the gastly PS2! (ok, unrelated but important none-the-less).

Sure, the Bond series might get more promotion and perhaps a bigger budget, but my guess is they would target the teen audience (even more so then MGM with DAD) and put the movies in CGI overdrive.

Unless EON can stop them. *worried expression*.

[Qwerty]

It scares me actually. SONY is the last corporation I wanted to buy out MGM! They were the ones who paired with McClory to get the rights to the Bond films, created the disgustingly horrid xXx

Sure, the Bond series might get more promotion and perhaps a bigger budget, but my guess is they would target the teen audience (even more so then MGM with DAD) and put the movies in CGI overdrive.

Unless EON can stop them. *worried expression*.

I agree with everything said here.

I would not at all like to see these films ever fall into the hands of Sony, no thanks.

CGI and teen targeted audience....they'd be just smacking around the formula of Bond and messing it all up. Ick, don't want to see anymore come from this news.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

My gut reaction is also one of fear, but on second thought, under Sony, it'd be interesting to see where this franchise goes. I don't know if we can look at the Spider-Man franchise as an example of what to expect.

However, I suppose this act of financial takeover is the ultimate retribution for not making a "rival" Bond film ... Sony returns with a vengeance.

[Agent 76]

if this would be good for the franchise , in terms of going with it to other ways to develop better stories and plots , why not.

[Icephoenix]

It's not quite that simple Agent76, SONY don't exactly have a track record for coming up with crack espionage stories. They believe spys only "blow stuff up", and all for the kiddies at that.

Besides, EON have more bargaining power with MGM, and are the main figures behind the series. I believe SONY will want to take complete control of the helm, since there is already a blood fued running between them.

[Agent 76]

It's not quite that simple Agent76, SONY don't exactly have a track record for coming up with crack espionage stories. They believe spys only "blow stuff up", and all for the kiddies at that.

Besides, EON have more bargaining power with MGM, and are the main figures behind the series. I believe SONY will want to take complete control of the helm, since there is already a blood fued running between them.

maybe you're right.

Keep the Lion roaring...

[crashdrive]

SONY don't exactly have a track record for coming up with crack espionage stories.

Sony distributed John Boorman's excellent 'The Tailor of Panama' (one helluva crack espionage story courtesy of John Le Carr

[TheCheat]

it just wont be right having a bond film with no lion before it

Edited by TheCheat, 21 April 2004 - 10:26 PM.

[Bond Bug]

Great news for the future of James Bond

[M_Balje]

[quote name='crashdrive' date='22 April 2004 - 00:02'] [quote name='Icephoenix' date='21 April 2004 - 21:36'] SONY don't exactly have a track record for coming up with crack espionage stories. [/quote]
Sony distributed John Boorman's excellent 'The Tailor of Panama' (one helluva crack espionage story courtesy of John Le Carr

[neversaynever]

it just wont be right having a bond film with no lion before it

Sorry, but hasn't the lion only appeared before the last two or three films, with all the previous ones being United Artists?

[J J]

[quote name='M_Balje' date='21 April 2004 - 22:50'] [quote name='crashdrive' date='22 April 2004 - 00:02'] [quote name='Icephoenix' date='21 April 2004 - 21:36'] SONY don't exactly have a track record for coming up with crack espionage stories. [/quote]
Sony distributed John Boorman's excellent 'The Tailor of Panama' (one helluva crack espionage story courtesy of John Le Carr

[M_Balje]

There are 2 other thing

[neversaynever]

I'm not really sure that graphic design on a DVD cover is the most persuasive argument against this acquisition!

[Turn]

I don't know if this would effect the upcoming remastered DVDs, but Sony DVD does put out a nice series called Superbit. These use the highest bit rate for the best possible picture and sound. The problem is this comes at the expense of other features.

I think it's a little early to say if this would be a bad thing or not. I'd rather see the series with Sony as opposed to Warners or Universal.

[Triton]

I wonder if Sony is interested in acquiring the MGM/UA film library as a means of pushing its Blu-Ray high definition video disk technology in the coming format war with AOD, which is being endorsed by Toshiba and NEC?

[TheCheat]

i would love to see superbit for the upcoming bonds as well as the 4 brosnan bonds, really use them to show off a surround sound.

superbit is a great investment if you have a good surround sound, i have bought a few of them, even though they cost more and have less features (xXx, lawrence of arabia, the fifth element, the mask of zorro, panic room)

[Moomoo]

I doubt Sony buying out MGM will make much difference to the quality of future Bond films. If Bond 21 turns poor, then why not give it to Sony? Besides, Bond 20 already went the XXX route so I can't see how people can expect it any worse under Sony. DAD was hardly a favourite with the die-hard fans.

Just my humble opinion, but I've got the impression MGM/Eon seem to have lost direction with Bond. The series seems a little tired, it certainly lacks something. Sony could reinvigorate the franchise. At least Sony will spend even more money on the budget and marketing. And that could also mean a return to a regular summer release date. And perhaps more high profile directors at the helm.

But I guess the important thing is the quality of the screenplays and the cast and crew attached. Sony, MGM - does it really matter? Just get the screenplays right and no-one will care who owns Bond. That's how I see it, anyway.

Moomoo

[Qwerty]

I doubt Sony buying out MGM will make much difference to the quality of future Bond films. If Bond 21 turns poor, then why not give it to Sony? Besides, Bond 20 already went the XXX route so I can't see how people can expect it any worse under Sony. DAD was hardly a favourite with the die-hard fans.

Just my humble opinion, but I've got the impression MGM/Eon seem to have lost direction with Bond. The series seems a little tired, it certainly lacks something. Sony could reinvigorate the franchise. At least Sony will spend even more money on the budget and marketing. And that could also mean a return to a regular summer release date. And perhaps more high profile directors at the helm.

But I guess the important thing is the quality of the screenplays and the cast and crew attached. Sony, MGM - does it really matter? Just get the screenplays right and no-one will care who owns Bond. That's how I see it, anyway.

Moomoo

You make a very interesting point Moomoo, but I still think, some of the less than par MGM trials would be better than what Sony might come up for the franchise to make it a Bond film in their own style.

[SeanValen00V]

This is great news if it happens, MGM put James Bond on such a tight micoscope, MGM are too money hungary, I know all studios are, but there not smart enough to know what makes Bond sucessful, they want to make comprises that guarantee big opening weekend grosses, the problem is, you make too make mediocore Bond films, the audiences will find them less appealing over time, must see Bond filcks is something the fanchise has earnt for producing good entertainment, but test the audience too much, they will make due with their dvds and wait for the dvds, they have had too much say in the creative aspects of Bond and messed it up, Sony are not so depended on one thing, MGM are, Bond is their survival really, Sony have Spiderman and let Sam Raimi get on with it and make his films, if they had Bond, they'll be more smart about the fanchise, and let the people get on with it at EON.

Sam Raimi and Spiderman films are a good example.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 22 April 2004 - 12:17 PM.

[SeanValen00V]

But I guess the important thing is the quality of the screenplays and the cast and crew attached. Sony, MGM - does it really matter? Just get the screenplays right and no-one will care who owns Bond. That's how I see it, anyway.

Moomoo

Don't forget, you know your investor wants to know what their investing in, EON shows them a script for James Bond, they can approve or dispprove things, they can suggest, wait, add this star, add Halle Berry, add Denise richards for young male audience, sacificing story of the film.

Recently FOX has told Chris Carter, if you want to do a 2nd x files film, bring in a big star, since it's been a while since Xfiles has gone, now I hear Robin Williams might be onboard it along with David D and Gillian, looking at williams in One Hour Photo, he likely is weird enough to fit the bill for X files, lol.

Studios want reasurrance, they just wanna sometimes find things to guranntee money, some stars do that, but sometimes, some actors just don't fit the bill, and Die another day had to make creative sell outs for the Jinx character, she wasn't needed, Barbara Brocolli I remember menstioned they had 2nd thoughts about bringing Halle Berry in, those 2nd thoughts were good thoughts, so what changed the tune? MGM must of, then later she said, well I'm glad we brought her in after all, what crap when they defend their creative doubts, Pierce Brosnan had to talk good about DAD when it was out as well, only now criticising it after it's made it's money etc

Edited by SeanValen00V, 22 April 2004 - 12:29 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I wonder if Sony is interested in acquiring the MGM/UA film library as a means of pushing its Blu-Ray high definition video disk technology in the coming format war with AOD, which is being endorsed by Toshiba and NEC?

I'm cynical enough to think that this could be the case. I can't see a studio these days spending billions buying a rival studio just for the artistic product it has in its posession.

[J J]

This is great news if it happens, MGM put James Bond on such a tight micoscope, MGM are too money hungary, I know all studios are, but there not smart enough to know what makes Bond sucessful, they want to make comprises that guarantee big opening weekend grosses, the problem is, you make too make mediocore Bond films, the audiences will find them less appealing over time, must see Bond filcks is something the fanchise has earnt for producing good entertainment, but test the audience too much, they will make due with their dvds and wait for the dvds, they have had too much say in the creative aspects of Bond and messed it up, Sony are not so depended on one thing, MGM are, Bond is their survival really, Sony have Spiderman and let Sam Raimi get on with it and make his films, if they had Bond, they'll be more smart about the fanchise, and let the people get on with it at EON.

Sam Raimi and Spiderman films are a good example.

You seem to forget that SONY does not perse equal Columbia Pictures. As I pointed out in my earlier post, I expect MGM will become a sort of 'business unit' reporting to SONY and operating more or less 'independently' from Col Pix, like Tri-Star in the early 90s. There are a few examples of this structure at other studios that work fine this way, like New Line - Time Warner and Buena Vista (Disney) - Miramax. Harvey Weinstein gets away with a lot of films that would never get made by Buena Vista (Bad Santa, anyone).

A few things would definitely change (esp. in the distribution/marketing process), but I think EON and MGM still can pretty much produce the Bondfilm they vision (that means, if they can agree on what course to follow).

[zencat]

Sony let Columbia stand, but it folded TriStar into Sony Pictures. I expect they'll let MGM stand. That logo is worth a lot. But, whatever the structure, Sony means more "suits", and that's not a good thing. Still, Sony also means John Calley, and that could be a very good thing. When we saw Pierce at The Thomas Crown Affair screening, he couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Calley as an exec.

[J J]

Sony let Columbia stand, but it folded TriStar into Sony Pictures. I expect they'll let MGM stand. That logo is worth a lot. But, whatever the structure, Sony means more "suits", and that's not a good thing. Still, Sony also means John Calley, and that could be a very good thing. When we saw Pierce at The Thomas Crown Affair screening, he couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Calley as an exec.

sorry Zen, Calley left Columbia in October 2003...

[[dark]]

According to The Age, if the deal goes through, Bond will remain the only product which would be produced under the MGM brand.

Everything else will go by the Sony label.

[zencat]

Sony let Columbia stand, but it folded TriStar into Sony Pictures. I expect they'll let MGM stand. That logo is worth a lot. But, whatever the structure, Sony means more "suits", and that's not a good thing. Still, Sony also means John Calley, and that could be a very good thing. When we saw Pierce at The Thomas Crown Affair screening, he couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Calley as an exec.

sorry Zen, Calley left Columbia in October 2003...

Whoops. That's what I get for letting my subscription to Variety lapse. Thanks.

[Jim]

Sony and yet so far.


[Utterly meaningless, except as a "comedy" / "tragedy" headline]