MGM Sued Over 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'
#1
Posted 26 May 2004 - 08:59 AM
#2
Posted 26 May 2004 - 10:47 AM
#3
Posted 26 May 2004 - 11:16 AM
#4
Posted 26 May 2004 - 03:41 PM
Nice find Athena.
#5
Posted 26 May 2004 - 04:58 PM
#6
Posted 27 May 2004 - 02:28 AM
Mustn't be much money in them.
#7
Posted 27 May 2004 - 02:40 AM
I wonder if IFP intends to have a series of novels based on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, develop the property for other media, like computer games, or intends to sell the film rights to someone else and wishes to get MGM/UA out of the picture?
Or it could be that MGM/UA had to renew its rights to the property in 1992 according to its original deal with the Ian Fleming estate (IFP) to make the original film? Perhaps IFP was negligent in enforcing its copyright until now? Perhaps the new board its as amiable as the one headed by Peter Janson-Smith?
With a new board at IFP dominated by the banking side of the Fleming family, I wonder if there will be any changes with the film rights agreement with Eon Productions over James Bond? Does anyone know if the James Bond film rights purchased by Eon Productions had an expiration date?
#8
Posted 27 May 2004 - 03:13 AM
Just kidding. Had to say that!
#9
Posted 27 May 2004 - 10:38 AM
Yes, good find. Much of interest (by interest I mean "while away the hours speculation", but hey...)Very interesting. Of course, Eon produced Chitty so I wonder if this impacts them? This is good story to follow because it may reveal just how bad relations are between IFP and Eon/MGM. Seems the Fleming nieces have some new lawyers looking over the old contracts. I wonder if we will see some kind of lawsuit in the future regarding Bond?
Nice find Athena.
And I'd certainly agree there's substantial newbroomery going on here; Mr Benson out, a "paralysis" on continuing adult Bond, a "new direction" with Mr Higson, yet further reissues, and now this.
Looks like someone, somewhere, has taken IFP by the throat and has decided to get ruthless. Regardless of the output, this may prove a good thing because with the attitude taken towards marketing the continuation novels, the impression was of a certain complacency setting in. The "soft life" as some bloke once called it.
#10
Posted 29 May 2004 - 10:34 AM
Seems to describe bankers quite well, actually.Looks like someone, somewhere, has taken IFP by the throat and has decided to get ruthless.
#11
Posted 29 May 2004 - 11:46 AM
seem more like merchant bankers to meSeems to describe bankers quite well, actually.Looks like someone, somewhere, has taken IFP by the throat and has decided to get ruthless.
#12
Posted 29 May 2004 - 12:03 PM
I believe Fleming was a merchant banker in his youth.seem more like merchant bankers to me
Seems to describe bankers quite well, actually.Looks like someone, somewhere, has taken IFP by the throat and has decided to get ruthless.
As for the points Jim makes in his latest post on this thread, it appears to me that:
THEN - IFP seemed like a couldn't-be-bothered cowboy outfit/Mafia front (or something), but at least commissioned (to colossal public indifference and unimpressive sales, it is true) continuation novels that many Bond fans wanted to read;
NOW - IFP seems like a go-getting, dog-eat-dogging, y'know, proper business that actually wants to make money, but no longer commissions (and doesn't seem about to commission) continuation novels that many Bond fans want to read.
If only they could combine the best bits of THEN (bringing out new novels that many Bond fans want to read) and NOW (being commercially astute and proactive).
#13
Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:30 AM
I wonder if IFP intends to have a series of novels based on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, develop the property for other media, like computer games, or intends to sell the film rights to someone else and wishes to get MGM/UA out of the picture?
You are prophetic indeed. Shame you're no longer with us Triton.