38 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

MGM To Take James Bond Back From Sony?

Plus, reported new salary deal for Daniel Craig as 007

Minor bit of Bond-related news in this interesting article from the Hollywood Reporter...

Sony, MGM, and the James Bond franchise

...

Meanwhile, Sony, which released 2006's "Casino Royale" to roughly $167 million at the boxoffice, would love the rights to the James Bond franchise, though MGM is unlikely ever to let them go. As it stands, Sony has the right to distribute the upcoming Bond film theatrically, with MGM set to handle the film's release on cable and home entertainment.

"On the next Bond film, Sony is a 50-50 financier with MGM," says one source familiar with the arrangement. "But, according to their deal, in five years, MGM can buy Sony's 50% back. That was true on 'Casino Royale,' too: They can buy Sony's half back in five years, and there's plenty of TV and DVD money in those movies."

Indeed, MGM holds the rights to all future outings, and the resurrected studio is equally determined to make the most of Bond. Executives recently renegotiated the company's deal with star Daniel Craig to continue as 007, significantly upping his salary though declining to give him a share of back-end.

...

http://commanderbond...n...&item=41873 - The Hollywood Reporter

[Skudor]

LOL - this stuff is impossible to keep on top of. Sounds like MGM still has a significant slice of the pie.

And renegotiating with DC - adding more movies to his contract or just upping his pay cheque?

[Santa]

I hate all the corporate .

[00Twelve]

And renegotiating with DC - adding more movies to his contract or just upping his pay cheque?

Indeed, my question as well...

[Major Tallon]

They wouldn't just give him a salary increase out of the goodness of their hearts. This wouldn't be happening if they knew that Craig had a limited shelf life in the part. They're paying Craig for an extended commitment to the role of James Bond. It's a remarkable vote of confidence, and I applaud them for it. And, by the way, I applaud Craig as well.

[Professor Dent]

LOL - this stuff is impossible to keep on top of. Sounds like MGM still has a significant slice of the pie.

I agree. I actually try to follow this stuff & I can't keep up with it.

[Qwerty]

LOL - this stuff is impossible to keep on top of.

It does seem like there is something new each time.

[tdalton]

They wouldn't just give him a salary increase out of the goodness of their hearts. This wouldn't be happening if they knew that Craig had a limited shelf life in the part. They're paying Craig for an extended commitment to the role of James Bond. It's a remarkable vote of confidence, and I applaud them for it. And, by the way, I applaud Craig as well.

I hope that this is the case and that they've signed Craig for more Bond films than the original three that he was supposed to be doing. He's truly a fantastic actor who is very much on the rise in Hollywood, and not to mention he is, IMO, the best James Bond to date. Hopefully, if they decide to (or already have) give him an extension, it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of the number of films that Connery and Moore had in their tenures.

[Skudor]

I'd guess that at most they've signed him for another option of some sort, but I'm willing to be surprised.

[Judo chop]

Once we all thought the world was flat. That proved to be only partially true. (Nebraska, is in fact, flat.)

Shortly after, we all thought that Sony had purchased 100% ownership of Bond leaving MGM with diddly. Wrong again.

Do we all still think that Craig has no more and no less than a 3 year contract as Bond?

[dodge]

Once we all thought the world was flat. That proved to be only partially true. (Nebraska, is in fact, flat.)

Shortly after, we all thought that Sony had purchased 100% ownership of Bond leaving MGM with diddly. Wrong again.

Do we all still think that Craig has no more and no less than a 3 year contract as Bond?

What's amusing is the certainy with which opinions are expressed. We read in the most emphatic terms that Craig will only do 2 films, three tops...that Paul Haggis did no more than 'tweak' the dialogue for CR...that Eon will never do this or do that...

"Nobody knows anything."
--William Goldman--

[Judo chop]

Once we all thought the world was flat. That proved to be only partially true. (Nebraska, is in fact, flat.)

Shortly after, we all thought that Sony had purchased 100% ownership of Bond leaving MGM with diddly. Wrong again.

Do we all still think that Craig has no more and no less than a 3 year contract as Bond?

What's amusing is the certainy with which opinions are expressed. We read in the most emphatic terms that Craig will only do 2 films, three tops...that Paul Haggis did no more than 'tweak' the dialogue for CR...that Eon will never do this or do that...

Even more amusing are the claims that this is how Craig's contract with EON reads, verbatim.

[Gobi-1]

I've been soured to SONY with their handling of the DVD release of Casino Royale and I'm actually kind of hoping that MGM does eventually buy back SONY's 50% stake in Bond. To SONY Bond is just one more spoke in a very big wheel. Just another product to push. To MGM however it's the crown jewel of the studio and a point of pride. I feel that MGM will take better care of the franchise then SONY, who I fear will want more creative control as time goes on. I worry about Bond becoming too corporate under SONY ownership.

[triviachamp]

To MGM however it's the crown jewel of the studio and a point of pride. I feel that MGM will take better care of the franchise then SONY, who I fear will want more creative control as time goes on. I worry about Bond becoming too corporate under SONY ownership.

That's because it is the only thing making money at MGM.
It will be the Crown Jewel in a heap of dung though. I mean MGM has had quite the decline since the 1950s.

[Royal Dalton]

MGM has had quite the decline since the 1950s.

It's a Loew's-Loew's situation.

[triviachamp]

MGM has had quite the decline since the 1950s.

It's a Loew's-Loew's situation.

A Supreme Injustice and Mayer Mistake no? MGM's cold condition has yet to Thalberg.

[mister-white]

I thought that CR was a Sony movie with the MGM being just a honourary thing, just to be consistant. I'm pretty certain that it was released to the theatres by Sony (since the local theatre had popcorn bags and t-shirts with the poster on it, and it seems they only do that for Sony movies) and the DVD/ Blu-ray has the Sony logo slapped on it a couple of times. So yeah, but I guess this answers why CR didn't get a UE treatment, hopefully if MGM buys the other half back, we might see a real nice UE of it on DVD. But you gotta think, is Sony willing to give up and sell it, or are they gonna try to buy MGM's half. Or they can probably come to some agreement and become partners (sorta reminds me of the stories of how Cubby wanted to buy the rights from Harry, but yet Harry wanted to become partners, and so they did).

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

MGM To Take James Bond Back From Sony?

Plus, reported new salary deal for Daniel Craig as 007

[jaguar007]

I had thought SONY had bought MGM. What do I know???

[hugo]

He deserves every penny.

[DLibrasnow]

I've been soured to SONY with their handling of the DVD release of Casino Royale and I'm actually kind of hoping that MGM does eventually buy back SONY's 50% stake in Bond.

To make it even more confusing:
EON owns 100 percent of the Bond franchise after the mid-1990s when Cubby bought back the 50 percent that United Artists had acquired in the 1970s.

[ACE]

MGM has had quite the decline since the 1950s.

It's a Loew's-Loew's situation.

RD. You keep coming up with some biscuits dontcha?

To make it even more confusing:
EON owns 100 percent of the Bond franchise after the mid-1990s when Cubby bought back the 50 percent that United Artists had acquired in the 1970s.

This is incorrect. Eon Productions Limited does not own any of the franchise - it is merely the service company that makes the films under licence. The copyright of franchise is jointly owned by Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation.

I have some observations:

1) I'm almost certain that Craig would have a three-picture contract with an option (on the producer's side) for a fourth film. It has become an almost prerequisite to sign a new Bond actor to series in this way. Contracts like these are rarely based on a number of years although they would specifiy that each picture should be made within a certain time frame.

2) Contracts would contain escalator and bonus clauses which mean that if a picture makes a certain amount the person under contract benefits accordingly. DC may even have a share of the net revenues of the film and merchandizing (Roger did). One has no way of knowing whether DC's cash bonus was already contractually due.

3) Both of the above can be varied by consent if both parties agree. Film is about relationships and while a lot of work (promotional chores, interviews, photoshoots, PAs) is contracted for, a lot is given by a party with goodwill.

4) I doubt very much the number of pictures under DC's tenure will be extended (DC's agents would never allow it). CR's success means that when the option is exercised on a fourth film, they are in a better negotiating position and if he wants to do a stand alone 5th film, he will be doing so from a position of strength.

[Binyamin]

Am I the only one here who actually doesn't want to see Craig do six or seven films "just like Moore?"

Seems to me, things start getting stale with one actor after about four.

[sorking]

MGM has had quite the decline since the 1950s.

It's a Loew's-Loew's situation.

RD. You keep coming up with some biscuits dontcha?

To make it even more confusing:
EON owns 100 percent of the Bond franchise after the mid-1990s when Cubby bought back the 50 percent that United Artists had acquired in the 1970s.

This is incorrect. Eon Productions Limited does not own any of the franchise - it is merely the service company that makes the films under licence. The copyright of franchise is jointly owned by Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation.

I have some observations:

1) I'm almost certain that Craig would have a three-picture contract with an option (on the producer's side) for a fourth film. It has become an almost prerequisite to sign a new Bond actor to series in this way. Contracts like these are rarely based on a number of years although they would specifiy that each picture should be made within a certain time frame.

2) Contracts would contain escalator and bonus clauses which mean that if a picture makes a certain amount the person under contract benefits accordingly. DC may even have a share of the net revenues of the film and merchandizing (Roger did). One has no way of knowing whether DC's cash bonus was already contractually due.

3) Both of the above can be varied by consent if both parties agree. Film is about relationships and while a lot of work (promotional chores, interviews, photoshoots, PAs) is contracted for, a lot is given by a party with goodwill.

4) I doubt very much the number of pictures under DC's tenure will be extended (DC's agents would never allow it). CR's success means that when the option is exercised on a fourth film, they are in a better negotiating position and if he wants to do a stand alone 5th film, he will be doing so from a position of strength.

Agreed. All wise words.

"Declining to give him a share of back-end" makes me laugh. You can't NOT get a piece of the profits - lead actors, it's the rules. From TV repeats to DVD sales to box office - PACT, Equity, SAG, whatever, it's unavoidable. It's only how much above the minimum percentage that can be disputed when playing in this league.

[Brock Samson]

Am I the only one here who actually doesn't want to see Craig do six or seven films "just like Moore?"

Seems to me, things start getting stale with one actor after about four.

Seconded.

[DLibrasnow]

The copyright of franchise is jointly owned by Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation.

Actually, United Artists Corp. does not own any of the franchise any longer. As John Cork reported Cubby got back their 50 percent stake in the 1990s.

[Royal Dalton]

It was MGM/UA's share of Danjaq that Cubby got back. MGM retained their half of the Bond rights.

[ACE]

The copyright of franchise is jointly owned by Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation.

Actually, United Artists Corp. does not own any of the franchise any longer. As John Cork reported Cubby got back their 50 percent stake in the 1990s.

Actually, I understand that Mr Cork merely reported what someone had told him. It was never verified and is actually incorrect, although repeatedly quoted. The ownership of the franchise is very clear - the copyright of the material and related rights are jointly owned by Danjaq (and its emanations) and UA Corp and its emanations and successors in title. This position is asserted in the 2006 book, The Art Of Bond and all the Ultimate Edition DVDs (the latest products on the market commenting on the history of the franchise). Some Casino Royale rights are additionally owned by Columbia Industries Inc. If one party owned the entire rights, the copyright notices would not and could not name a party who does not actually own the rights. By definition. Cubby, unfortunately, never did purchase 50% of Bond back from UA.

[triviachamp]

If one party owned the entire rights, the copyright notices would not and could not name a party who does not actually own the rights. By definition. Cubby, unfortunately, never did purchase 50% of Bond back from UA.

So how come UA was not part of the copyright notices until The Living Daylights then? That was in the 1980s mind you.

From what Royal Dalton told me, Cubby bought back Danjaq but UA kept the rights. This would have occured around 1986. Perhaps Ted Turner's brief ownership had something to do with it?

[ACE]

If one party owned the entire rights, the copyright notices would not and could not name a party who does not actually own the rights. By definition. Cubby, unfortunately, never did purchase 50% of Bond back from UA.

So how come UA was not part of the copyright notices until The Living Daylights then? That was in the 1980s mind you.

Because Danjaq SA (as it then was), was a company owned by shares. The shares that had once belonged to Harry Saltzman were purchased by United Artists (as it then was). Danjaq SA - the Swiss holding company into which the rights were then vested - then became jointly owned by Cubby et al, and the studio. Shareholders of a single owning entity are rarely, if ever, individually credited.

Ultimately, the Bond rights are now jointly owned by Danjaq and the studio.

You will also notice that on all print merchandise, the copyright was shared by Glidrose Publications Limited. The literary copyright holders owned a piece of the film merchandizing until a certain point. This position then changed.

There have been several corporate restructures (for various reasons - the holding companies of Bond rights are more numerous and complex then one can relate here) and the position was separated out. No doubt, there will be several more to come in the immediate future.