Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Studio distribution rights up for grabs after SPECTRE


63 replies to this topic

#31 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 07 June 2015 - 08:55 PM

The problem with studio heads in general is: they are subject to change at any given time.

 

Whatever studio will get the nod from MGM, it is no guarantee that the current man at the top will actually be there when a creative decision for the Bond franchise will have to be made.

 

And I do strongly believe that EON is not a pushover.  Especially not now since the Craig era and SKYFALL has secured their position as the strongest one since, well, 1965.

Couldn't have said it any better :)



#32 Syndicate

Syndicate

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Location:San Francisco, California

Posted 09 June 2015 - 06:37 PM


Outside of a Sony/Pascal deal, I don't know where I'd want to see Bond end up.  I know I don't want to see it go to Warner Bros., that much is for certain.


Maybe Summit Entertainment, 20th Century Fox or Liongates as I said before already. Anyway 20th Century Fox are the ones helping MGM release the Bond movies on DVD and BD. IF don't work out with any studios for MGM andEon, maybe go back to the good old day themselves without any studios. IF that still works and they have no problems like money and having to need help.

#33 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 10 June 2015 - 01:46 PM

I think that WB was behind NSNA. Not really their finest hour.

Disney already has too many franchises

Universal would be in my opinion a good shot : solid and strong studios with some properties but not too many and th know how for real international movies. F&F is a good example of multicultural international success and their investments in local productions show a wider mind than others that could be useful for Bond



#34 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 June 2015 - 02:57 PM

 

Outside of a Sony/Pascal deal, I don't know where I'd want to see Bond end up.  I know I don't want to see it go to Warner Bros., that much is for certain.


Maybe Summit Entertainment, 20th Century Fox or Liongates as I said before already. Anyway 20th Century Fox are the ones helping MGM release the Bond movies on DVD and BD. IF don't work out with any studios for MGM andEon, maybe go back to the good old day themselves without any studios. IF that still works and they have no problems like money and having to need help.

 

 

Um... that was not my quote, Sir.



#35 Syndicate

Syndicate

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Location:San Francisco, California

Posted 12 June 2015 - 05:22 AM

Outside of a Sony/Pascal deal, I don't know where I'd want to see Bond end up.  I know I don't want to see it go to Warner Bros., that much is for certain.


Maybe Summit Entertainment, 20th Century Fox or Liongates as I said before already. Anyway 20th Century Fox are the ones helping MGM release the Bond movies on DVD and BD. IF don't work out with any studios for MGM andEon, maybe go back to the good old day themselves without any studios. IF that still works and they have no problems like money and having to need help.

 
Um... that was not my quote, Sir.


Sorry about that.

#36 Trevelyan 006

Trevelyan 006

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts
  • Location:Antenna Cradle

Posted 12 June 2015 - 05:59 AM

I hope Sony renews the partnership. Why stop a good thing?

I rather agree, honestly. If poor marketing is the only complaint I can come up with, I'd say that's not too bad.



#37 DisneyGets007

DisneyGets007

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire

Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:50 PM

Hello everyone; let me introduce to all of you Bond fans; my name is Callum Precious, or DisneyGets007. As a Disney and Bond fan, i've suggested already on YouTube that distribution rights to the James Bond franchise will '''go into Disney''':

I also announce today here that i will making a special documentary movie looking at the Grand Theft Auto 'James Bond' mod that changed the world :-)

Plus an exclusive look back at the mod's greatest moments.

Although many people rumoured on Twitter and Facebook that the franchise will go into Disney, and not WB.

#38 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 24 July 2015 - 04:00 PM

Is this supposed to be some kind of Hawking parody? Because if so you must have taken the wrong tube at Vauxhall Cross...

#39 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 24 July 2015 - 06:07 PM

These automated voices crack me up!



#40 Robinson

Robinson

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts
  • Location:East Harlem, New Yawk

Posted 27 July 2015 - 09:28 PM

Now that "Pixels" has underperformed, the industry is wondering what Sony will do now...

 

http://www.thewrap.c...dentity-crisis/

 

It may be worth them paying extra to keep EON & MGM. Outside of QOS, the box office results have been great. Not having another tentpole would mean Sony could cultivate Bond along with EON/MGM. I truly agree that Sony's marketing have to improve but the hacks and lack of professionalism from their execs could really hurt them.

 

WB & Disney are overrun with franchise flicks and Cinematic Universes that will keep them occupied for the next 10-15 years; provided the ticket receipts remain high. I also believe that these franchise films will keep certain directors locked in for the foreseeable future. I can't see Snyder jumping from DC to do Bond (or EON would actually consider him). Cameron's locked into Avatar, The only "names" of note that I think would be considered for Bond are Christopher Nolan, Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn.



#41 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 27 July 2015 - 10:01 PM

...

Outside of QOS, the box office results have been great.

...

The problem with QoS wasn't the box office, which wasn't that far from CR. More than half a billion bucks isn't that bad. The problem was in the production costs of $ 230 million.   :dry:



#42 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 October 2015 - 03:36 PM

Interesting new article in THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: http://www.hollywood...se-james-833474

 

Didn´t know that SONY has such a bad deal.  But that might really be the reason why no other studio will accept to work with MGM on Bond.

 

Also, quite baffling, that SPECTRE is that costly and unlikely to be a big success even if it becomes a mega blockbuster...



#43 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 04:15 PM

Thanks for sharing this; indeed, it's baffling how SONY agreed to such terms. The real question to me would be what kind of actual services - if any - MGM contributes to the production of the recent Bond films? Apart from a number of - frankly downright stupid and absurd - comments by the likes of Barber and his McSuits I have, to the best of my knowledge, not yet seen any evidence that MGM would play an even remotely helpful role in the series. Their efforts seem not to extend beyond simple money-grabbing and making-of-demands, be they sensible or completely ignorant.

Things being as they are MGM will likely succeed in luring another partner into a similarly tailored deal over two or three films. But I would really like to see how they do on their own for a change. Might be a sobering experience...

#44 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 October 2015 - 04:27 PM

Kind of sad that MGM can hold on to Bond, make crazy demands and celebrate themselves as those who hold the key to the kingdom.

 

Good thing that BB and MGW are very tough cookies.



#45 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 05:22 PM

If they weren't the series would have taken some different turns a long time ago; most of them not for the better, I dare say...

#46 Gobi-1

Gobi-1

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
  • Location:East Texas

Posted 07 November 2015 - 06:15 AM

Do you think that the new distribution deal (and whichever studio ends up with it) is tied directly to Craig's continuing service in the role? Sony and MGM had a two picture distribution deal for CR and QoS and renewed for two more films, SF and SP. Do you think EON/MGM would sign Craig on for two more Bond films to make the future distribution more attractive for potential partners? Craig is their biggest bargaining chip. They might lose some power if they are going with a new Bond actor.



#47 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 07:14 AM

I don't think it's out of the question they could strike a deal over two films. But I suppose it's very unlikely. We are looking at three year gaps now between films, and at very complex productions, too. At a guess I'd say it's one more at the most. Actually, having seen the last few frames of SPECTRE I even suspect this already was Craig's last.

In that case it could take a little longer for the next distribution deal because the studio would want to be sure of the next actor to take over. The only ones in a hurry are the people on MGM's fifth floor.

#48 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 November 2015 - 09:20 AM

Agreed.  SPECTRE ends in a way that it actually could close Craig´s tenure.  Storywise, however, BOND 25 could (and IMO should) finish Craig´s tenure better.  After that, in BOND 26 he would be the oldest Bond since Sir Roger - and I don´t think that Craig wants that, and neither would the youth-obsessed studio heads that cough up the money.

 

So, IMO, there will be one more Craig-Bond if everything goes according to plan (EON definitely wants to hang on to Craig).  If not, BOND 25 will start fresh.

 

Either way, the next year will be very interesting, laying out the deciding factors:  1) SPECTRE´s worldwide grosses (right now, it seems to come out of the gate very strongly, but will it have staying power?), 2) Which studio will be the next distributor (if SONY continues they will want to hang on to Craig as well since he is a proven commodity in Bond films).

 

If the grosses will come in significantly under SKYFALL (look at the comparison between THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and the much costlier THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2), it might be construed as a reason for another reboot (not of the origin story but of the conception of the films, including lead actor).

 

And if WARNER BROS. (reportedly the biggest competition for SONY on this) takes over it might very well start fresh, just because that´s what happens when another business force takes over.



#49 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 10:44 AM

I don't think that EON and MGM will have any trouble finding someone to take the franchise on. Having Craig on board isn't really going to be that much of a deal-sweetener, as the films are going to make boatloads of cash regardless of who they cast in the role of Bond.

#50 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 09 November 2015 - 11:43 AM

They expect it to be figured out by Jan or Feb, according to Wilson.



#51 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 01:12 PM

Oh, suitors there are plenty. It depends if that monstrous greedy moloch MGM has turned into is going to get its exorbitant demands fulfilled. For, according to recent reports, they are tough terms money isn't easily earned under for their partner studio. And their other output frankly isn't anywhere close to attractive enough to agree on a deal with them on a whim. The guys with the calculators will have to work long and hard for this contract to make it past controlling.

#52 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 November 2015 - 02:24 PM

Judging from the okay but not spectacular box office in the US, it seems that SPECTRE will be considered a success but not as big as it should have been, in relation to its enormous costs.

 

Which, IMO, is probably all good.  The next film will have a smaller budget and be better for it.  The next distributor will also try to keep costs down.

 

I wouldn´t mind a leaner story with a director who is not an arthouse favourite, just someone who can tell a story effectively.



#53 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 04:23 PM

Judging from the okay but not spectacular box office in the US, it seems that SPECTRE will be considered a success but not as big as it should have been, in relation to its enormous costs.

Which, IMO, is probably all good. The next film will have a smaller budget and be better for it. The next distributor will also try to keep costs down.

I wouldn´t mind a leaner story with a director who is not an arthouse favourite, just someone who can tell a story effectively.



Absolutely. The bigger - bigger - BIGGER craze has to stop somewhere. When the financial crisis broke out 2007 most sane people shook their heads about a budget north of $ 200 million. By now we are looking at significantly increased budgets that are supposed to earn their studios and producers still a pretty penny. At some point the chain of distribution will not be able to sustain the demands of investors and one of these productions is going to crash. It would not be nice if that happened to a Bond film; but in the current climate chances are it's going to happen sooner rather than later. I would rather have they tuned down the volume a few notches and concentrate on a tighter story again. While SKYFALL was already huge it certainly succeeded in doing just that, giving the audience an intense drama and protagonists you cared for.

#54 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 November 2015 - 05:09 PM

I actually wonder why SPECTRE was that expensive.  I can only imagine that moving around these large crews from country to country was a huge cost factor.

 

The actual stunts? Hmm.  The actors´ salaries?  Perhaps.  Mendes´ cut? Yep.

 

But still... SKYFALL looked more expensive and wasn´t.  Even CR and QOS, for my money, had more production value.



#55 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 05:21 PM

I actually only noticed it since you mentioned the drop of visual brilliance after Morocco and in the London parts. With what became publicly known after the leaks affair the budget looks to be always a sensitive topic, small wonder. It might have been a wise idea to cut back their aspirations a bit, also in terms of running length. I don't see the need for a Bond production to rival a LOTR's film; all the more so when I look at the actual events, which will happen within roughly a week or two at the most.

#56 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 06:10 PM

I would prefer a lean, mean sendoff for Craig.

#57 Gobi-1

Gobi-1

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
  • Location:East Texas

Posted 10 November 2015 - 12:40 AM

They should spend a longer time in one location for the next film instead of globe-hopping every five minutes like Spectre and QoS. Might I suggest Japan.



#58 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 10 November 2015 - 02:48 AM

I would prefer a lean, mean sendoff for Craig.

I presume the tragedy of Bond's past doesn't hurt as much anymore in SPECTRE, hence his more flippant tone?

 

If Blofeld is busted out of jail, and he directly threatens Bond's world, and Madeleine, I could see him returning to a colder, gruff personality.



#59 rubixcub

rubixcub

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 12 November 2015 - 04:11 AM

The rights being up for grabs is the one thing that worries me as far as the timetable for the next one.  Things like this have always been the culprit for the series' biggest delays.

 

Dave



#60 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 November 2015 - 05:28 AM

The rights being up for grabs is the one thing that worries me as far as the timetable for the next one.  Things like this have always been the culprit for the series' biggest delays.

 

Dave

 

Once again - it´s not the rights!  It´s just MGM getting probably a new distributor for its whole slate, including Bond.  The choice wil be made in January/February.  It won´t be a factor in the timeline for BOND 25.