477 replies to this topic

[scaramunga]

What is the outlook for MGM then? Most likely they will be purchased by another studio?

A purchase could take quite a while? What happens to future planned MGM films including Bond 23?

Is the home video division also affected and this is why the rest of the Bond films on blu ray have yet to be announced and MGM's only blu ray release for the rest of the year is the Rocky set?

[Qwerty]

MGM battling bondholders and bankruptcy; James Bond in limbo

Troubled studio home in desperate need of funds for production slate

[Trident]

Are we talking another forced hiatus for x years?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well... fvck.

[Trident]

Well... fvck.

We are talking a hiatus..., hit, with a capital S!

[Mr. Blofeld]

Poor Dan.

[Orion]

EON could take the seires to the clearly more than keen Sony, theyt've already co-produced Daniel's first two, and are making other non-Bond pictures with EON.

[Trident]

The question would be, how much of an asset is Bond in MGM's portfolio and how easy/how difficult is it to cut Bond from MGM's tapes? I don't think it's just wham-bam-thank-you-MGM and off we go for distant shores. There may be a variety of interested parties willing to step into MGM's place. But I suppose there are legal hurdles preventing EON from just taking their property to another door unless MGM hasn't closed shop for good. And I also suppose a big share of the missing 150 million was credited initially with the Bond series securely tucked away somewhere in MGM's contracts. Meaning in effect No Bond - No (more) MGM.

[tdalton]

Great. Looks as though we're in store for another hiatus. We already lost at least one Dalton film to MGM's troubles (although those were of the legal variety) and now we're looking at losing the rest of the Craig films due to their inability to make money. Wonderful.

[Mr. Somerset]

Nah, I think Barbara and Mickey G will get it sorted out before 2011. We'll probably see B23 at Sony or Columbia.
The Dalton senario will not strike twice.

[tdalton]

Nah, I think Barbara and Mickey G will get it sorted out before 2011. We'll probably see B23 at Sony or Columbia.
The Dalton senario will not strike twice.

There's nothing for Broccoli and Wilson to sort out here. MGM is never going to let go of the Bond movies, because if they do, they will have no chance at a future as a company. Letting go of Bond will almost certainly mark the end of MGM. If they think that there's anyway that they can get out of bankruptcy, they'll cling to the Bond franchise. As someone stated earlier, EON just can't pack up their bags and head to Sony (or any other company, for that matter). They're going to be along for the ride with MGM unless Sony comes along with an offer for EON that MGM just can't refuse (which I doubt, considering the staggering amount of debt MGM is operating under).

It appears now as though both of the truly great Bonds will only get two films apiece.

[danslittlefinger]

You know all along I felt that Craig would do only three films and he would have short career as Bond. I now think that two might be the true number.

Well, not much we can do now but wait.

[solace]

Hopefully things will get sorted out. No more DC bonds would be a great shame.

[Mr. Somerset]

Not too worried till I see an official statement from EON delaying the film until 2014.
I still say the Dalton situation will not strike twice.

[YOLT]

Arent there any Arab or Russian petro-rich people outthere to save 007

[YOLT]

Arent there any Arab or Russian petro-rich people outthere to save 007

[YOLT]

Arent there any Arab or Russian petro-rich people outthere to save 007

[danslittlefinger]

Maybe Warren Buffet can step in.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Nah, I think Barbara and Mickey G will get it sorted out before 2011. We'll probably see B23 at Sony or Columbia.
The Dalton senario will not strike twice.

Agreed. The big difference is that Craig-Bond is a hot, profitable commodity. Dalton appealed to us diehards but not to the mainstream.I think MGM should just sell...let Bond live twice...elsewhere.Comon, Sony! Get your checkbook out.

[dinovelvet]

Could not Sony still continue to co-produce the Bonds as they've done for the last two films? I suppose its not up to them at this point, but maybe a special deal could be worked out just for Bond. I'm sure even MGM would prefer to get a share of Bond profits rather than no profits at all. Bond 23 is pretty much guaranteed at least $500 million worldwide box office, so it seems crazy that they won't get something worked out.

[JLaidlaw]

Forgive me for being a complete novice, but one would imagine that the best way to get a studio out of debt is to fast-track films which are basically a licence to print money, so finding the necessary means to make Bond 23 and The Hobbit Duology would be the primary focus no matter what shape MGM was in? I can see the rest of MGM's future plans easily disappearing, but Bond has never been a hotter property.

[Turn]

I don't know the exact ins and outs or ups and downs of the ongoing MGM saga, but I just wish it and United Artists would die peacefully. Both have a rich legacy, but it's not working in the new millennium, save for the Bond series.

Let the art these studios produced in the past speak for itself because it's as a business I don't think it will ever be anything more than an ongoing series of rotating owners and troubles.

[CaptainPower]

I don't know the exact ins and outs or ups and downs of the ongoing MGM saga, but I just wish it and United Artists would die peacefully. Both have a rich legacy, but it's not working in the new millennium, save for the Bond series.

Let the art these studios produced in the past speak for itself because it's as a business I don't think it will ever be anything more than an ongoing series of rotating owners and troubles.

While I agree that MGM should be put out of its misery, if it was declared dead thats a lot of jobs that would be lost. And as much as I love James Bond, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[Matt_13]

Well that's not what I wanted to hear.


How the hell are they in so much debt?

[tdalton]

Nah, I think Barbara and Mickey G will get it sorted out before 2011. We'll probably see B23 at Sony or Columbia.
The Dalton senario will not strike twice.

Agreed. The big difference is that Craig-Bond is a hot, profitable commodity. Dalton appealed to us diehards but not to the mainstream.I think MGM should just sell...let Bond live twice...elsewhere.Comon, Sony! Get your checkbook out.

I don't see any incentive for MGM to sell Bond, though. The only commodity that they have to keep them with a fighting chance to stay alive as a company is the Bond franchise. They'll hold onto that until the doors close for good. As far as I can see, the only hope for Bond 23 at the current moment would be if Sony decided to be generous and offer to produce this film and allow MGM to keep a healthy portion of the profits in order to keep them up and running for a bit longer. I don't see it happening, though (Sony does have to actually make money on these films, after all). Sadly, I think that we're going to be without Bond for a very long time.

[dinovelvet]

Well that's not what I wanted to hear.

How the hell are they in so much debt?

Rollerball (2002)
Production budget = $70 million
Worldwide gross = $25.8 million

Windtalkers (2002)
Production budget = $115 million
Worldwide gross = $77.6 million

Hart's War (2002)
Production budget = $70 million
Worldwide gross = $32 million

Flyboys (2006)
Production budget = $60 million
Worldwide gross = $17 million

etc etc

[mister-white]

I don't see MGM really surviving in its current state. Bond 23 WILL and SHOULD be a Sony only distribution. Just look at a few of the things Sony has done since acquiring "part of" MGM and the Bond franchaise: We've seen new restorations for the home video releases of the previous 20 releases, which all went on to have some outstanding special features and become true "Ultimate Editions" and we saw Eon get complete creative control for what became Casino Royale and the casting of Daniel Craig- wouldn't have happened at MGM. So, again, although it came at the price of over-product placement, Sony has save the Bond films and should continue their involvement. When Bond 23 opens, all we'll see is the "torch lady" without any roaring lion.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I don't see MGM really surviving in its current state. Bond 23 WILL and SHOULD be a Sony only distribution. Just look at a few of the things Sony has done since acquiring "part of" MGM and the Bond franchaise: We've seen new restorations for the home video releases of the previous 20 releases, which all went on to have some outstanding special features and become true "Ultimate Editions" and we saw Eon get complete creative control for what became Casino Royale and the casting of Daniel Craig- wouldn't have happened at MGM. So, again, although it came at the price of over-product placement, Sony has save the Bond films and should continue their involvement. When Bond 23 opens, all we'll see is the "torch lady" without any roaring lion.

Quite inspiring, really.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Unfortunately, I don't think Sony at this time can do anything about James Bond. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MGM buy out their "freedom" from Sony earlier this year under the contract provisions allowing them to do so; i.e. MGM had until this spring or so to buy back their company from Sony and its partners or else find itself permanently under Sony ownership. MGM did just that, got their freedom, and are now in this crisis--and we the fans are in development, or rather lack of development, hell.

This news sucks, but it can hardly be seen as surprising if one has been paying attention. Under this economic climate and MGM's track record over the last thirty years or so, I don't see the studio surviving this time. I think that its bankruptcy is inevitable and then who knows what will happen.

Not knowing anything about bankruptcy law, I don't know what is likely to occur with MGM or its films and franchises nor how fast such proceedings could take. I think, ideally, the James Bond series would be free to go to the highest bidder, and hopefully that would be Sony who not only seem highly interested in 007, but also have a proven track record in co-producing the series with EON.

I suspect this news is probably why we haven't heard any news regarding Bond 23 since the hiring of Peter Morgan. EON undoubtedly had knowledge, or at least a strong suspicion, of the severity of MGM's financial troubles and, as a result, put Bond 23's pre-production on hold (except for the script) until MGM becomes a little more stable and gets their house in order--or completely falls apart.

My guess as to when the earliest we might expect Bond 23 is fall 2011 (very optimistic, I feel) and probably more likely the fall of 2012 (with a 44-year-old Daniel Craig). If the hiatus lasts much beyond that, we're talking at least five years between films and likely the casting of a new 007.

[Cruiserweight]

This never happened to the other fellas...(Connery,Moore"- the 3 year gap",& Brosnan)