42 replies to this topic

[H.M.Servant]

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

But I do think the 2005 release date is still a possibility, if it will be released by MGM, which can still happen. even if the company is in debt. from a business point of view. Sony will take over MGM (this means that they will take over their debt as well) so why not make this movie as soon as possible, and that way let it finance part investment that sony has made by taking over MGM?

[Martin Aston]

so why not make this movie as soon as possible, and that way let it finance part investment that sony has made by taking over MGM?

Why not? Because we're talking about Hollywood here, and Hollywood egos.

As an acquaintence of mine in the business said, James Bond is a big, bright, shiny new toy for the executives at Sony to play with. They're going to want tohave a say in the script, the casting, the crew and the director.

Under the American corporate rules of "fiduciary responsibility" a company that's been sold can not enter into a business transaction that significantly changes that company's finances or valuation. Yes Bond is a cash cow. But think of it like buying a house: Once you're in escrow - and you've agreed to sell - you can't "change" the house, or do anything that might affect it's value. And deciding to spend $140 million on a Bond picture, without the consent, consultation and approval by Sony isn't going to fly.

So while Sony may want to get a Bond picture out, they're going to want to get THEIR Bond picture out, with their studio's creative imprint on it.

And whether this is good or bad I suppose depends on how you feel about Charlie's Angels II, Bad Boys II, Men in Black II, or Die Another Day.

[Jim]

And whether this is good or bad I suppose depends on how you feel about Charlie's Angels II, Bad Boys II, Men in Black II, or Die Another Day.

Ah.

Oh.

Um.

[Genrewriter]

Well, one out of four isn't...actually it's quite bad. Of those four though, DAD is definitely the best. CA2 beats it out in terms of T&A though.

[Loomis]

And whether this is good or bad I suppose depends on how you feel about Charlie's Angels II, Bad Boys II, Men in Black II, or Die Another Day.

Ah.

Oh.

Um.

Have the folks at Sony made any good films, though? Didn't they do the SPIDER-MANs? Sorry, but my knowledge of studios is woeful.

[Qwerty]

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.

Eon should push those kind of numbers. A 2007 release would be very good. 2006, and then 2007 could be done.

[Loomis]

As an acquaintence of mine in the business said, James Bond is a big, bright, shiny new toy for the executives at Sony to play with. They're going to want tohave a say in the script, the casting, the crew and the director ... they're going to want to get THEIR Bond picture out, with their studio's creative imprint on it.

But what about Eon's traditional autonomy (or semi-autonomy)? Isn't that the whole point of Eon's deal being negotiated separately? Sony execs can't possibly force, say, Sam Raimi or Gore Verbinski on Eon as the director of BOND 21 (Eon has always hired UK/Commonwealth directors only, and never "name" directors).... can they?

[Bond Bug]

So are we supposed to believe MGM will hold all its movies? Of course not and the Sony buyout won't be on the basis that MGM stops all its projects in its tracks, that would be mad.

Bond 21 WILL be released Nov 2005

And Moomoo, you'll just have to trust me on this one!

Hugh Jackman WILL be James Bond!

[Mister Asterix]

Moo,
Your definition of

[Martin Aston]

I just want to add one very critical thing here that everyone else seems to have missed:

For the past 20 years, since the Rocky films were in their heyday, the Bond franchise has been the single most important film and franchise at MGM/UA.

In fact, if you discount Barbershop, which has never been a blockbuster, and Pink Panther, which have been out of production for decades, Bond is the only thing that's kept MGM/UA alive.

Bond is often called the jewel in the MGM/UA crown.

As such, the power in this relationship resided with EON. MGM needed a new Bond in the production line, just to keep the shareholders and banks happy.

At Sony, this isn't the case. I'm sure Bond will be important. But they have lots of other franchises, like Spiderman, whose first sequal was much bigger than Bond.

And even if Bond is one of the most important franchises at Sony, bear in mind that the ENTIRE film division is about the same size as Sony's telephone business which is a tiny part of their home electronics division.

So what I'm saying is that there's going to be a shift in power with regard to Bond. Sony doesn't "need" Bond. Unlike MGM, where every stock market analyist asked about Bond and made stock recommendations based on it, the franchise represents a tiny part of Sony.

So Sony can take their time to get it right. Sony can insist on better directors. Sony can delay the film if they don't like the script without effecting the stock price.

Sony can tell EON to take a powder for three years which MGM could not.

EON has just gone from being the most important player at a studio to just another fish. Important but no longer the biggest most important producer on the lot..

For some ways better and some ways worse I suspect this is going to change everything about the series.

[Loomis]

I'm sure Bond will be important. But (Sony) have lots of other franchises, like Spiderman, whose first sequal was much bigger than Bond.

And even if Bond is one of the most important franchises at Sony, bear in mind that the ENTIRE film division is about the same size as Sony's telephone business which is a tiny part of their home electronics division.

So what I'm saying is that there's going to be a shift in power with regard to Bond. Sony doesn't "need" Bond. Unlike MGM, where every stock market analyist asked about Bond and made stock recommendations based on it, the franchise represents a tiny part of Sony.

So Sony can take their time to get it right. Sony can insist on better directors. Sony can delay the film if they don't like the script without effecting the stock price.

Sony can tell EON to take a powder for three years which MGM could not. ...

... For some ways better and some ways worse I suspect this is going to change everything about the series.

Interesting.

[Mister Asterix]

So Sony can take their time to get it right. Sony can insist on better directors. Sony can delay the film if they don't like the script without effecting the stock price.

Sony can tell EON to take a powder for three years which MGM could not.

Sony can write a check without taking out another loan.

[Qwerty]

Bond 21 WILL be released Nov 2005

And Moomoo, you'll just have to trust me on this one!

Hugh Jackman WILL be James Bond!

You say 2005, Moomoo says 2006....

Uh huh.