44 replies to this topic

[[dark]]

MGM To Take Back 007 Distribution From 'Bond 23' On

Variety also clarifies Daniel Craig's new James Bond contract

[craigbegins]

Is this good news? Bad? I honestly thought Sony did a good job with Casino Royale.

Edited by craigbegins, 05 November 2007 - 01:04 PM.

[Simon]

Someone, somewhere, is going to have to explain what has just happened.

I thought Sony taking over MGM was the end of it. So how on earth has Sony just 'sat back' and let MGM walk off with what is obviously a prized possession?

No law suits? No arguments?

[Righty007]

No law suits? No arguments?

Sony stills owns MGM/James Bond but it looks like they're letting MGM have sole distribution of it instead of having a partnership between Sony/Columbia and MGM.

I say Sony and MGM give distribution rights back to the renewed United Artists. Oh wait, that would be giving 007 to Tom Cruise. Nevermind!

[Simon]

Well, this I understand but does Distribution earn anyone any money?

I am thinking yes, so why would Sony let Bond go without an argument? If MGM is still operating as another company, what is Sony's strategy to put Bond under an obvious umbrella other than their own?

[B5Erik]

Remember, Sony is not THE owner of MGM. They own something like 20-30% of MGM as part of an investment group.

Contractually, MGM was able to re-start their distribution wing after a year with Sony. Sony execs didn't think the guys running MGM would actually fight so hard to keep their company's independence, but they did. The other owners in the investment group liked what MGM did and agreed with it so there isn't anything Sony can do to stop it - it's in the contract!

I like it. I didn't like the way Sony gave us basically a barebones DVD release (compared to the SE's that MGM had put out on EVERY other Bond title), and something always struck me as too corporate about them.

We'll see how this works out, but I think it's a positive move. Sony was more likely to interfere with production of Bond movies than MGM is.

[DLibrasnow]

Sony doesn't own MGM outright. Sony was only one of the partners in a group that bought MGM a couple of years ago.

Heck, Sony isn't even the majority partner.

[Simon]

Remember, Sony is not THE owner of MGM. They own something like 20-30% of MGM as part of an investment group.

Contractually, MGM was able to re-start their distribution wing after a year with Sony. Sony execs didn't think the guys running MGM would actually fight so hard to keep their company's independence, but they did. The other owners in the investment group liked what MGM did and agreed with it so there isn't anything Sony can do to stop it - it's in the contract!

I like it. I didn't like the way Sony gave us basically a barebones DVD release (compared to the SE's that MGM had put out on EVERY other Bond title), and something always struck me as too corporate about them.

We'll see how this works out, but I think it's a positive move. Sony was more likely to interfere with production of Bond movies than MGM is.

Ok, thanks. didn't know about the 20-30% ownership, nor the year's contract.

As for intefering, it was MGM that gave us Teri Hatcher and Denise Richards. I don't have a problem with Hatcher but that was where the pressure to have her came from.

[Judo chop]

Interesting about that poll EON ran to test Craig

[doubler83]

Nevermind who owns what. Bond in 2010, baby!!!

[K1Bond007]

Interesting about that poll EON ran to test Craig’s global acceptance. Had they ever done something like this before signing the previous Bond actors?

Well I don't think they've ever renegotiated a contract before. I mean they had Craig locked at 3 films (#1 being Royale). They didn't need to renegotiate, but it probably helps them now before he becomes possibly too popular and then demands a far bigger salary. In the past they'd ride out the contract then sign up the actor to play again on a film by film basis. That can be pretty pricey given a popular actor. Polling just reaffirms their decision to lock him in for more films. It's just good business sense.

[Professor Dent]

I guess I'll look forward to not seeing a Columbia logo before the gunbarrel (yes, I'm optimistic that it will be back ).

[Righty007]

Nevermind who owns what. Bond in 2010, baby!!!

What's the significance of that year in terms of Bond?

[mister-white]

I think, and I hope that this isn't the last that we hear of this. Just look at what happened with CR, MGM was taking forever to do anything with it, letting it get pushed back more and more. It wasn't until Sony came in and said "sit down, and get it done". And one thing that's already got me worried, Remember on DAD and previous films, when the DVD would take like more than six months to be released (I remember seeing DAD in theatres in November and didn't get the DVD till June), but on CR, Sony had the rights and it was out like three months later. That definitly has to be a Sony thing. Plus, I think Fox, who will be handling the DVD, will give us the shaft by giving us a DVD with nothing on it, with a commentary at the very most (I know Sony did that with CR, but at least it has a couple of nice featurettes, just too little of them). I was actually hoping that Sony will take on the Bond series full time. So, I don't think Sony's going to take this sitting down.

[doubler83]

Nevermind who owns what. Bond in 2010, baby!!!

What's the significance of that year in terms of Bond?

Nothing, really. Just two years to wait from Bond 22 to Bond 23.

Sorry, I'll go and sit back in the corner now.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I guess I'll look forward to not seeing a Columbia logo before the gunbarrel (yes, I'm optimistic that it will be back ).

Probably showing my age here, but I always used to love that very simple UA logo with the simple piano notes at the beginning of the Bond films...

[Skudor]

I guess I'll look forward to not seeing a Columbia logo before the gunbarrel (yes, I'm optimistic that it will be back ).

Probably showing my age here, but I always used to love that very simple UA logo with the simple piano notes at the beginning of the Bond films...

Same here. Miss that.

Regarding the research, I could have told them this for half the money.

[RazorBlade]

Nevermind who owns what. Bond in 2010, baby!!!

You go, Daddy-O! and 5 DC as bond films. This rocks!

[JimmyBond]

Nevermind who owns what. Bond in 2010, baby!!!

What's the significance of that year in terms of Bond?

Nothing, really. Just two years to wait from Bond 22 to Bond 23.

It's been a long time since we've had three Bond films in quick succession like this

[triviachamp]

It's been a long time since we've had three Bond films in quick succession like this

GE to TWINE?

[DLibrasnow]

I guess I'll look forward to not seeing a Columbia logo before the gunbarrel (yes, I'm optimistic that it will be back ).

Probably showing my age here, but I always used to love that very simple UA logo with the simple piano notes at the beginning of the Bond films...

I miss the UA logo circa 1981. When it was a TransAmerica company.

[RivenWinner]

Good to start getting more solid confirmation about MGM's future with Bond. It seems that people everywhere still remain somewhat confused about MGM and Sony, although you guys described the situation very well. It was all in the contract when MGM was purchased...after a year or so they could vote to return as a distributor and production company, and well, they did. Course, the other side of the deal was that Sony was able to share the goods for that year or so off of Bond, The Pink Panther, Rocky Balboa, and a few other MGM films. The lame "Pink Panther 2" also shares a similar situation with Bond 22 I think.


anyway, good to see both MGM and UA getting back up on their feet.

[zencat]

It's bad news. MGM is a half-baked production company, not a real studio. I don't want to see Bond back (solely) in their hands.

[Daddy Bond]

It's bad news. MGM is a half-baked production company, not a real studio. I don't want to see Bond back (solely) in their hands.

They once were a great studio - once upon a time.

[zencat]

It's bad news. MGM is a half-baked production company, not a real studio. I don't want to see Bond back (solely) in their hands.

They once were a great studio - once upon a time.

They were...50+ years ago. But the MGM that exists today is not the same MGM of yesteryear (I'm not even sure it's the same company -- I heard once that the MGM hotel chain is the original MGM corporation who lease the "MGM" name and logo to this relatively new Hollywood entity). And, really, how long have we been reading stories about a great MGM comeback? Since the '80s. They live off their library (and Bond) and have never pulled it together production-wise.

[Daddy Bond]

It's bad news. MGM is a half-baked production company, not a real studio. I don't want to see Bond back (solely) in their hands.

They once were a great studio - once upon a time.

They were...50+ years ago. But the MGM that exists today is not the same MGM of yesteryear (I'm not even sure it's the same company -- I heard once that the MGM hotel chain is the original MGM corporation who lease the "MGM" name and logo to this relatively new Hollywood entity). And, really, how long have we been reading stories about a great MGM comeback? Since the '80s. They live off their library (and Bond) and have never pulled it together production-wise.

I should have said "Once upon a time, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away they were once a great movie studio." Remember, I am a classic movie fan, and I even like musicals (yes, that's right, corny, silly musicals with people breaking out in song for no apparent reason whatsoever).

[zencat]

It's bad news. MGM is a half-baked production company, not a real studio. I don't want to see Bond back (solely) in their hands.

They once were a great studio - once upon a time.

They were...50+ years ago. But the MGM that exists today is not the same MGM of yesteryear (I'm not even sure it's the same company -- I heard once that the MGM hotel chain is the original MGM corporation who lease the "MGM" name and logo to this relatively new Hollywood entity). And, really, how long have we been reading stories about a great MGM comeback? Since the '80s. They live off their library (and Bond) and have never pulled it together production-wise.

I should have said "Once upon a time, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away they were once a great movie studio." Remember, I am a classic movie fan, and I even like musicals (yes, that's right, corny, silly musicals with people breaking out in song for no apparent reason whatsoever).

Oh, I'm the same, Daddy Bond. I long for the glory days of MGM. In fact, I'm always a little sad when I go to Sony, because that was the old MGM lot (and I remember when it was MGM). There's just something wrong about seeing the name "Columbia Pictures" on the Thalberg building. And the last time I was there I saw the old soundstage that still held a strip of yellow brick road had been torn down.

[Daddy Bond]

Those were the days.

[Bondian]

Remember, I am a classic movie fan, and I even like musicals (yes, that's right, corny, silly musicals with people breaking out in song for no apparent reason whatsoever).

Thank heavens for that. I thought I was the only musical freak here.

You sentence reminds me of a line that 'Mad Marguerite' says in 'Ruddigore', just before the chorus appears.

MAR. Hush! They sing choruses in public. That's mad enough, I think!

[Daddy Bond]

Remember, I am a classic movie fan, and I even like musicals (yes, that's right, corny, silly musicals with people breaking out in song for no apparent reason whatsoever).

Thank heavens for that. I thought I was the only musical freak here.

You sentence reminds me of a line that 'Mad Marguerite' says in 'Ruddigore', just before the chorus appears.

MAR. Hush! They sing choruses in public. That's mad enough, I think!

However, I could never bring myself to like Wizard of Oz. I just can't. I like a couple of the numbers, but I don't like that movie. Yet, I have most of the other greats like Sound of Music, Singing in the Rain, Meet Me in St. Louis and so on...especially Fred and Ginger and Fred and Eleanor Powell who perform the best tap duet ever. Well, now everyone at Commander Bond knows I'm truly strange.

Those were the days at MGM (yes, I realize many of those pics weren't MGM), but the were THE studio for musicals, like Warner Bros. for Film Noir and RKO for light comedies.