42 replies to this topic

[Moomoo]

Moomoo has returned. Hello my moomoos!

Here's the proof:

'Spokesmen for MGM, Sony, Comcast and the private equity partners declined comment Monday beyond a brief MGM statement laying out the deal details. Agreements are expected to be finalized within the next two weeks. The deal will require regulatory approval from the Department of Justice and the European Union. Sources believe that the deal will take about six months to close and because of legal constraints; until that time MGM and Sony must operate separately. '

So the deal is expected to take six months. That would make Bond 21's shooting schedule start around April at the earliest. An April production date would mean a tight seven-eight months shoot, plus post-prodution. And we can remember the pressure put on Tomorrow Never Dies' short schedule. I don't think Eon and Sony want to rush Bond 21 into production. I think it's very likely Bond 21 will be out summer 2006. Which spookily enough, I was told back in December of last year. How odd. Hee hee.

Sony and Spider-man = summer.
Sony and Bond = summer.
You wait and see...

Moomoo (back from the dead)

[Max Zorin]

Ah, the plot thickens.

[Arrant]

Welcome back MooMoo, after your melodramatic departure.

Rumors of your demise were presumptive.

However, your source appears to have been psychic seeing as the cause of the delay (as cited by you) is the Legal finalization of a deal with Sony, that even Sony didn't know was "in the can" until yesterday.

MGM and Sony must "legally" act separately, means, without prejudice to the contract between them. No insider dealing until the Monopolies commission has agreed the merger.

Neither has to sit on there hands for six months, and business as usual can progress.

Expect Bond 21 in November 2005. It will be rubbish, but expect it non the less.

[Arrant]

Max Zorin...

I have just noticed your wish list, at the bottom of your post for a perfect Bond 21.

Right on!...... if only, if only.....

[zencat]

April. Well, that all eerily agrees with this story.

They are going to spend a FORTUNE in overtime to get Bond 21 on screen by Nov./Dec.

[Agent 76]

April. Well, that all eerily agrees with this story.

They are going to spend a FORTUNE in overtime to get Bond 21 on screen by Nov./Dec.

money is not a problem for Sony I believe...

[Max Zorin]

Expect Bond 21 in November 2005. It will be rubbish, but expect it non the less.

At this point in the series, I usually expect nothing but rubbish.

And I'm glad to see someone agrees with my perfect Bond!

[Moomoo]

Yes,I am back. Just as odd as ever.

Do you lot know P-B on ABJ? He claims Purefoy is the top candidate for Bond. Now if what I was told about Bond 21 being delayed till 2006 is correct, and it's looking that way, it's possible Jackman has signed as Bond. If he was signed it had to be before Helsing, not after, and what I was told fits that time-frame. So I still think my original claim could turn out true. Jackman could still be Bond for summer 2006. I am convinced Sony would go with Jackman over Purefoy. So I'd say as of today with Sony owning Bond it's 99.9% certain Jackman will be Bond.

By the way, I think Sony now has full control over the Bond franchise and Eon pretty much cannot refuse to make the new films. If they do, my guess is Sony will challenge this move in court and they're certain to win. According to the latest press releases, Sony own *all* of MGM stock including Bond's full library. I cannot believe Sony would buy MGM without the terms of the deal allowing them to produce future Bond films. Sony want to make future Bond films, not just make money from the old films. So I'm 99.9% sure it's Sony/Eon Bond films from now on. And if Bond plays a Sony Playstation game in Bond 21, all the better.

Moomoo

[Arrant]

I really don't think that mergers of companies will have any effect on the timing of Bond 21.

The only people that can delay Bond 21 are Purvis and Wade, by NOT producing an acceptable script on time, and I can't see that happening.

( They may not be the most inspired writers to handle the Bond franchise, but they are PROFFESSIONAL. )

Look at it this way! You go to work Monday morning and you make hamburgers for Macdonalds........There is a boardroom sell out and next Monday morning you go to work for Burgerking, and make hamburgers.

the only difference is the interior designers have been in and changed the livery of your restaurant over the weekend.

Your still at work making hamburgers...

[Agent 76]

Expect Bond 21 in November 2005. It will be rubbish, but expect it non the less.

At this point in the series, I usually expect nothing but rubbish.

quote of the decade!

[Janus Assassin]

Just as long as it comes out before I leave for wherever I go after I graduate.

[Moomoo]

With respect, Arrant, we are talking about legal conventions here. MGM and Sony need to get regulatory approval before the merger can be finalized, so the film will be delayed. It's impossible for the film to go into production (and by that, I mean actually filming the thing) without Sony being recognized as the legal owner of MGM. And that is expected to take six months.

We can't run before we can walk. Same with the MGM sale. No Bond film till Sony has got regulatory aprroval from the relevant US and European legal institutions.


Moomoo

[Arrant]

Given the predictions about how long it's going to be before Bond 21 comes out, one can only presume that Janus Assassin is 12.

[zencat]

With respect, Arrant, we are talking about legal conventions here. MGM and Sony need to get regulatory approval before the merger can be finalized, so the film will be delayed. It's impossible for the film to go into production (and by that, I mean actually filming the thing) without Sony being recognized as the legal owner of MGM. And that is expected to take six months.

We can't run before we can walk. Same with the MGM sale. No Bond film till Sony has got regulatory aprroval from the relevant US and European legal institutions.


Moomoo

According to Variety, the two studios will continue to run separately until the regulatory approval...which means nothing is preventing MGM from moving ahead on Bond 21 (unless they have no money). MGM is in production at this moment on The Amityville Horror and the Pink Panther movie...the sale isn't stopping these.

But I don't really know the legalities of it all. You may know better than I, Moomoo (did I just say that? ).

[Janus Assassin]

Close Arrant I'm only 16

[Moomoo]

Zencat, how can MGM continue to make Bond 21 when it:

A) Has massive debt

Has now been sold to Sony

C) The staff responsible for Bond 21 are certain to lose their jobs

If you were the main guy at MGM responsible for Bond 21, would you start the film knowing in six months time some new Sony guy will appear and fire you? I doubt it.

I think some things about Bond 21 are open to speculation, but it would be a very foolish man or woman to believe MGM would start Bond 21 when it will cease to exist in six months time.

Moomoo

[Moomoo]

Never write B and then a ) because you get a smiley face!

Zencat, have you lost a bit of your logic microchip? You typed:

"which means nothing is preventing MGM from moving ahead on Bond 21 (unless they have no money)."

MGM is 2 billion in debt! I'd say that is some indication they have no money. LOL If they had money wouldn't they have repaid all or some of the debt? MGM had to sell. It was sell or die.

Moomoo

[Moomoo]

One last pesky post:

Do we really want Bond 21 to be made by a studio that is two billion dollars in debt?

Great promotion, isn't it! Just imagine the teaser posters:

"MGM, the debt-ridden, totally incompetent studio, proudly present Hugh Jackman as James Bond in 'Die Another Cashflow'. Please see this film because we need the cash."

Moomoo

[Arrant]

I see what your saying MooMoo, and I believe you are correct in saying that any work of art ( including a film) that enters the public domain without a legal owner is at risk.

What I am saying is that legally ( as far as I'm aware..... and I think there are some legal experts on this site, that might put us both in our place !) there is nothing in either the sale or subsequent investigation,, that prevents the creation of that work of art, and it's ownership would remain with the creator, until he agreed terms.

As such, if MGM creates Bond 21, as part of there expected Business practices then Sony can't complain, and MGM own the rights until the official agreement of the sale ( it's NOT a merger).

I think the problem's would come if MGM declined to make a contracted film. Then they would be seen as deliberately attempting to reduce the stock of the company and Sony COULD complain.

That's why I,m now convinced that Bond 21 will come out on time, will star Brosnan and will be another DAD.

It's sad, because I think they stumbled upon a truly great Bond in Brosnan who could have played it either way.

He could have done another Connery, or another Moore, but even better

[Moomoo]

Arrant, it doesn't matter if the Bible says MGM can start work on Bond 21, money talks loudest. If MGM is bankrupt, and I guess they pretty much are with a two billion dollar debt and only one hit film in the last two years - Barbershop 2 - they can start Bond 21 right now but it won't amount to a hill of mouldy baked beans because Sony now owns MGM.

MGM won't take a percentage share of Bond 21's profits because they don't own Bond anymore. So no incentive to make Bond. Even MGM aren't that stupid to commence production on a film they won't even own and be entitled to take profit from in six months time.

SONY NOW OWNS MGM. They have put down a $150 million deposit to secure sole right to the sale so the wheels are in motion. MGM cannot make the new movie on their own. It's impossible, Sony would take legal action or pull out of the deal. It is already been mooted that Sony will invest up to 200 million dollars in Bond 21. Yes, this has been reported. So you think Eon is going to let MGM, a debt-ridden, incompetent, badly managed loss-making dead turkey of a studio start making a Bond film when they can wait 12 months and let Sony greenlight a 150-200 million dollar Bond film instead? No, they're not.

Trust me on this, you got more chance of Sean Connery returning as Bond than you have of MGM making Bond 21.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 15 September 2004 - 12:28 AM.

[Arrant]

Janus Assassin

16 !!!

Well I'm impressed with the maturity of your posts.....

.... Hell I thought you were at least 30, and meant my post as a joke!

[Arrant]

MooMoo

I think you miss my point. It doesn,t matter on paper who is making Bond 21.... MGM can.t refuse and Sony are up for it...

It may well be made under the MGM logo. ( in fact it has too, until conformation of the sale ) but there is NOTHING stopping Sony funding it....... Sony NEEDS Bond 21 on schedule more than MGM/Eon did,

Trust us....Trust our products.


Do you really think that, under the present circumstances Bond 21 matters as an artistic statement any more.

NO WAY.

as someone has recently pointed out, Money talks and it is yelling at Sony right now.

[Qwerty]

Moomoo has returned. Hello my moomoos!

Here's the proof:

'Spokesmen for MGM, Sony, Comcast and the private equity partners declined comment Monday beyond a brief MGM statement laying out the deal details. Agreements are expected to be finalized within the next two weeks. The deal will require regulatory approval from the Department of Justice and the European Union. Sources believe that the deal will take about six months to close and because of legal constraints; until that time MGM and Sony must operate separately. '

So the deal is expected to take six months. That would make Bond 21's shooting schedule start around April at the earliest. An April production date would mean a tight seven-eight months shoot, plus post-prodution. And we can remember the pressure put on Tomorrow Never Dies' short schedule. I don't think Eon and Sony want to rush Bond 21 into production. I think it's very likely Bond 21 will be out summer 2006. Which spookily enough, I was told back in December of last year. How odd. Hee hee.

Sony and Spider-man = summer.
Sony and Bond = summer.
You wait and see...

Moomoo (back from the dead)

2006, it seems likely.

[Moomoo]

It's summer 2006!

Spider-man, made by Sony - release date summer 2002 and 2004.

Bond - soon to be owned by Sony - release date summer 2006.

It makes perfect sense. Sony want Bond for summer. And 2006 is the perfect year. Forget 2007 - Sony is a huge company, it won't wait another year just because of the numbers 007 in 2007. 2006 is the year. Then it can make a return on its Bond investment.

Moomoo

[Qwerty]

It's summer 2006!

It's starting to make sense. 2005 still exists, but we just need to know more.

[Genrewriter]

At this point it could be either or. A summer 2006 date would be best since it would allow adequate time to mount a properly scaled and budgeted production. 2005 seems like it would be a bit of a stretch logistically.

[Qwerty]

At this point it could be either or. A summer 2006 date would be best since it would allow adequate time to mount a properly scaled and budgeted production. 2005 seems like it would be a bit of a stretch logistically.

If they did another rushed shoot, which isn't out of the question, they could do it.

[Genrewriter]

Yes but would they be able to produce something really, really good? As much as I love Tomorrow Never Dies, the fact that it worked as well as it did is a miracle.

[Qwerty]

Yes but would they be able to produce something really, really good? As much as I love Tomorrow Never Dies, the fact that it worked as well as it did is a miracle.

Well I did love Tomorrow Never Dies, so there's hope.

[H.M.Servant]

Bond - soon to be owned by Sony - release date summer 2006.

It makes perfect sense. Sony want Bond for summer. And 2006 is the perfect year. Forget 2007 - Sony is a huge company, it won't wait another year just because of the numbers 007 in 2007. 2006 is the year. Then it can make a return on its Bond investment.

Moomoo

even that can happen if 2006 has a summer release date and 2007 a x-mas release date. but I agree with you that sony probably doesn't care about those kind of numbers.