477 replies to this topic

[TheREAL008]

Hopefully something could be sorted out. I suppose Bond could go back to Sony pictures, but it just wouldn't feel the same.

[tdalton]

EON can not just pack their bags and say farewell. If they could they'd have done so already; the MGM crisis isn't exactly news and as has been pointed out, there must be a host of other parties wanting to join in on the party.

This is precisely the problem that EON is facing. As you said, if they could have left for the significantly greener pastures of Sony/Columbia, they would have done so a very long time ago. But, unfortunately, they can't do so, and MGM is going to hold onto the Bond franchise as long as they possibly can, which will ultimately stall production for a significant period of time.

I knew that we would be facing a long hiatus at some point in the near future, but I was hoping that Craig would at least get to finish his tenure in the role before it happened. Oh well, another great Bond tenure cut short. Thanks MGM.

I agree that they can't just pack their bags and go to another studio but I just don't agree with you pestimistic view on the situation.

I don't think that it's so much about being pessimistic as it is about being realistic. If there's no money (which there apparently isn't if they're a couple of billion dollars in debt and their investors are willing to let them go under to recoup their money), then there's no Bond. The fact of the matter is that every time the series gets going in a serious, no-nonsense direction, things get derailed. This happened after OHMSS (Lazenby quits, studio forced to hire Connery because of belief he was the only person people would pay to see), LTK (public dislike of Dalton and the new, more serious direction the franchise was headed in), and now with Craig (although popular, his last film was a disappointment to a great number of people, myself not included however).

I really do hope that they get this worked out, and I, for one, would be thrilled if MGM sold off the series because I'd rather not see it back in their hands anyway. Sony did such a wonderful job with it while it was in their hands, that I'd like to see it take up permanent residence under the Sony/Columbia umbrella. Sony showed with Casino Royale that they had a great deal of foresight and financial courage with the product because they allowed EON to go ahead with what may be the riskiest film in the franchise (reboot, unconventional actor in the role, a more serious, less action-driven film, letting go perhaps the most popular of the Bond actors, etc.) just after they acquired the rights to distribute and finance EON. Sony very well could have, and I wouldn't have blamed them one bit, ordered EON to bring Brosnan back and make Die Another Day 2 just so that they could get a big, successful blockbuster under their belts in their first film as a part of the franchise, but they didn't, and allowed EON to take a huge risk that ultimately paid off very big. All of that is something that MGM certainly would not have allowed EON to do, and I'm very thankful to Sony for going about making their two Bond films in the manner that they did, and I hope that they get permanent ownership of the franchise rather than allowing it to go under with MGM.

[Joe Bond]

EON can not just pack their bags and say farewell. If they could they'd have done so already; the MGM crisis isn't exactly news and as has been pointed out, there must be a host of other parties wanting to join in on the party.

This is precisely the problem that EON is facing. As you said, if they could have left for the significantly greener pastures of Sony/Columbia, they would have done so a very long time ago. But, unfortunately, they can't do so, and MGM is going to hold onto the Bond franchise as long as they possibly can, which will ultimately stall production for a significant period of time.

I knew that we would be facing a long hiatus at some point in the near future, but I was hoping that Craig would at least get to finish his tenure in the role before it happened. Oh well, another great Bond tenure cut short. Thanks MGM.

I agree that they can't just pack their bags and go to another studio but I just don't agree with you pestimistic view on the situation.

I don't think that it's so much about being pessimistic as it is about being realistic. If there's no money (which there apparently isn't if they're a couple of billion dollars in debt and their investors are willing to let them go under to recoup their money), then there's no Bond. The fact of the matter is that every time the series gets going in a serious, no-nonsense direction, things get derailed. This happened after OHMSS (Lazenby quits, studio forced to hire Connery because of belief he was the only person people would pay to see), LTK (public dislike of Dalton and the new, more serious direction the franchise was headed in), and now with Craig (although popular, his last film was a disappointment to a great number of people, myself not included however).

I really do hope that they get this worked out, and I, for one, would be thrilled if MGM sold off the series because I'd rather not see it back in their hands anyway. Sony did such a wonderful job with it while it was in their hands, that I'd like to see it take up permanent residence under the Sony/Columbia umbrella. Sony showed with Casino Royale that they had a great deal of foresight and financial courage with the product because they allowed EON to go ahead with what may be the riskiest film in the franchise (reboot, unconventional actor in the role, a more serious, less action-driven film, letting go perhaps the most popular of the Bond actors, etc.) just after they acquired the rights to distribute and finance EON. Sony very well could have, and I wouldn't have blamed them one bit, ordered EON to bring Brosnan back and make Die Another Day 2 just so that they could get a big, successful blockbuster under their belts in their first film as a part of the franchise, but they didn't, and allowed EON to take a huge risk that ultimately paid off very big. All of that is something that MGM certainly would not have allowed EON to do, and I'm very thankful to Sony for going about making their two Bond films in the manner that they did, and I hope that they get permanent ownership of the franchise rather than allowing it to go under with MGM.

I would agree with you once we get something official that says MGM is going to take the bankruptcy route as for right now we don't know since I thought the bondholders were threatening to let MGM go into bankruptcy in order to get an agreement with the creditors with enough money to fund The Hobbit, Bond 23 and other projects because bankruptcy is the worst option for the creditors since they would not get any of their money back. Additionally, if a deal can be struck between them for more money for MGM then Bond 23 will move forward. Obviously it won't pay off that huge debt there in but with two guaranteed blockbusters it could increase their regular revenue stream which could open the door for more credit in the future. I do agree that in my mind Sony is the best option for another studio to grab the rights since they have the experience of producing 2 Bond films and have shown, like you said, to give more freedom to EON and I actually feel their initial DVD release of CR was better than the QoS one which was a joke plus that 3 disc version of CR was sublime.

[tdalton]

I would agree with you once we get something official that says MGM is going to take the bankruptcy route as for right now we don't know since I thought the bondholders were threatening to let MGM go into bankruptcy in order to get an agreement with the creditors with enough money to fund The Hobbit, Bond 23 and other projects because bankruptcy is the worst option for the creditors since they would not get any of their money back. Additionally, if a deal can be struck between them for more money for MGM then Bond 23 will move forward. Obviously it won't pay off that huge debt there in but with two guaranteed blockbusters it could increase their regular revenue stream which could open the door for more credit in the future. I do agree that in my mind Sony is the best option for another studio to grab the rights since they have the experience of producing 2 Bond films and have shown, like you said, to give more freedom to EON and I actually feel their initial DVD release of CR was better than the QoS one which was a joke plus that 3 disc version of CR was sublime.

I think that the skepticism (at least on my part, anyway) comes from the fact that these types of things have happened to the Bond franchise all to often. It seems as though every time things really get headed in a good direction, something happens to derail that. Hopefully this doesn't turn out like the other situations, but I'm not hopeful. I always thought the Craig Era would be short, but I always thought that it would be because he decided to leave the role rather than the decision being made for him by the franchise's corporate backers. Hopefully this doesn't turn out to be the case.

Completely agreed with you on Sony's involvement, however. To me, Sony is probably the best thing to happen to Bond since Connery was cast in the role for Dr. No (without Sony, I'm assuming that Craig wouldn't currently occupy the role).

[Syndicate]

I suppose Bond could go back to Sony pictures, but it just wouldn't feel the same.

It just would not feel or look right at all. I never got use to seeing the Sony Picture log as part of the movie. That just like saying if some Disney stuff is not Disney's anymore, IF they were to have the same problem like MGM/UA. That really would NEVER look or feel right at all. Just think of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goffy, Pluto, Minie Mouse and Daisy Duck being own by Hanna Barbera. Snow White, Peter Pan, Lion King, Oliver And Company, Aladdin and Disney World own by Universal. wouldn't that just be one of the worst thing. So if do happen to Bond it be really bad, and just Bond all the stuff that belongs to MGM/UA's. This what should when things are done right the first around or people got it right, it should never be messed with or touched at all.

[jaguar007]

Syndicate,
As I mentioned in my post above, it is totally different. Bond does not have a rich history with MGM. MGM purchased UA in 1981 and became the distributor of the Bond films. UA has not been part of the distribution for several years.

In the case of Bond, EON is the Disney, not MGM.

[tdalton]

Syndicate,
As I mentioned in my post above, it is totally different. Bond does not have a rich history with MGM. MGM purchased UA in 1981 and became the distributor of the Bond films. UA has not been part of the distribution for several years.

In the case of Bond, EON is the Disney, not MGM.

Agreed.

I wouldn't be the least bit heartbroken to see Bond leave MGM. Actually, I'd welcome it with open arms, provided that the franchise landed at the doorstep of Sony/Columbia, who have already done a wonderful job on the two films that they were involved in.

[Germanlady]

Syndicate,
As I mentioned in my post above, it is totally different. Bond does not have a rich history with MGM. MGM purchased UA in 1981 and became the distributor of the Bond films. UA has not been part of the distribution for several years.

In the case of Bond, EON is the Disney, not MGM.

Agreed.

I wouldn't be the least bit heartbroken to see Bond leave MGM. Actually, I'd welcome it with open arms, provided that the franchise landed at the doorstep of Sony/Columbia, who have already done a wonderful job on the two films that they were involved in.

I can´t believe it, that people are actually bothering about what logo is involved and appears up front, when so much is at stake. I would be fine with Donald T rumps head showing as long as he financed the thing.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Where is Mr. Zorin Industries when we need him? (Or anybody else who seems to know what's going on at EON)

I think it's too early for any doomsday prophecies at the moment, but I would hate to see Craig go the Dalton-route of leaving long before we want him to. I mean that as in HATE.

[SecretAgentFan]

Syndicate,
As I mentioned in my post above, it is totally different. Bond does not have a rich history with MGM. MGM purchased UA in 1981 and became the distributor of the Bond films. UA has not been part of the distribution for several years.

In the case of Bond, EON is the Disney, not MGM.

Agreed.

I wouldn't be the least bit heartbroken to see Bond leave MGM. Actually, I'd welcome it with open arms, provided that the franchise landed at the doorstep of Sony/Columbia, who have already done a wonderful job on the two films that they were involved in.

Well put! Same here!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The difference between CR's $150 mil and QOS' $200+ mil can be found in the use of 'developing'/third world locations like Panama and Chile. They could have skimped and filmed round the back of Pinewood with some palm trees, but they splurged and went out there.

Sorry if I'm being naive, but if we're talking "developing" countries, wouldn't they be cheaper? Surely labour costs in Chile are lower than in, say, Berlin (or at Pinewood). Besides, BOURNE 3 shot in Morocco.

I'm no expert on this, but reading this reminds me of why they could not film in Russia for GE because the unit may destroy foundations of St Petersberg. Obviously, in the case of GE, it involved heavy tanks, but isn't this sort of thing an issue that pushes up shooting costs? Working in developing countries involves places that often have no facilities or utilities to support big budget film making. I would imagine insurance costs are high to cover against damage and liability in older less developed areas that are more prone to damage.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

It would break my heart if Craig didn't do another Bond movie. The man re-ignited my interest in 007 in a way that no other actor would have been able to.

[Bucky]

i have a bad feeling about this.

[Binyamin]

Oh, all of you, brighten up.

It does not matter which huge media company produces and distributes Bond, because the people at the helm of the franchise are Barbara Brocoli and Michael G. Wilson, just as it's been for decades.

It does not matter which studio logo gets displayed before the gun barrel. Really, who cares?

There is not a legal dispute about who owns Bond, as there has been in the past. If anything, Bond may be the first thing to be sold, because it is valuable. The proud new owners will then make 007 movies as fast as they can to cash in on their investment.


Think of it this way. Let's say you own a flashy Hummer limousine that not only looks cool, but makes money every time you lease it out. Problem is, you have some financial trouble and can't pay to fuel it and send it out, so it sits. You're close to bankruptcy and creditors are breathing down your neck.

You'd sell the limo to pay off debt. You'd do it quick, to beat back those damn creditors.

Or, if instead you go with bankruptcy, guess what, the court will be selling that shiny limo faster than Axworthy on a redhead. It will be moving fast, because it's valuable.

The Bond franchise is the limousine. And if anything, having it sold to a media company that can actually balance a checkbook will be a good thing in the long run.

[Trident]

Oh, all of you, brighten up.

It does not matter which huge media company produces and distributes Bond, because the people at the helm of the franchise are Barbara Brocoli and Michael G. Wilson, just as it's been for decades.

It does not matter which studio logo gets displayed before the gun barrel. Really, who cares?

There is not a legal dispute about who owns Bond, as there has been in the past. If anything, Bond may be the first thing to be sold, because it is valuable. The proud new owners will then make 007 movies as fast as they can to cash in on their investment.


Think of it this way. Let's say you own a flashy Hummer limousine that not only looks cool, but makes money every time you lease it out. Problem is, you have some financial trouble and can't pay to fuel it and send it out, so it sits. You're close to bankruptcy and creditors are breathing down your neck.

You'd sell the limo to pay off debt. You'd do it quick, to beat back those damn creditors.

Or, if instead you go with bankruptcy, guess what, the court will be selling that shiny limo faster than Axworthy on a redhead. It will be moving fast, because it's valuable.

The Bond franchise is the limousine. And if anything, having it sold to a media company that can actually balance a checkbook will be a good thing in the long run.

I'm afraid it really will be more complicated in this case. For MGM Bond is the single one asset to guarantee its survival. Without Bond an already struggling company will have an even harder time getting across the desert. I really see little chance they would agree to let Bond go; not unless they've decided to corporately commit suicide. It's surely not a lack of interested investors and I also don't think EON would be averse to a new partner. But for MGM losing Bond would almost certainly mean the end.

[Binyamin]

I really see little chance they would agree to let Bond go; not unless they've decided to corporately commit suicide.

With respect, I disagree.

Here's the thing: MGM needs cash. The Bond franchise can be the most valuable asset on paper, but unless it's generating cash, there is zero reason for the company to sit on it.

One of three things will happen: MGM will scrape together credit to produce Bond 23 and make some money. In which case, fans get the third Craig movie.

Or, MGM sells off the franchise for a nice sum, because they need the cash. In which case, the new owner makes Bond movies, and quickly.

Or finally, MGM is pushed into bankruptcy, and Bond is forcibly sold to another company at a discount. Bond movies get made, and quickly.

All three of these possibilities are good for Bond fans. So what's the problem? Cheer up

[Trident]

Well, let's see what we will see.
I'd love to be proved wrong on that issue.

[tdalton]

I really see little chance they would agree to let Bond go; not unless they've decided to corporately commit suicide.

With respect, I disagree.

Here's the thing: MGM needs cash. The Bond franchise can be the most valuable asset on paper, but unless it's generating cash, there is zero reason for the company to sit on it.

One of three things will happen: MGM will scrape together credit to produce Bond 23 and make some money. In which case, fans get the third Craig movie.

Or, MGM sells off the franchise for a nice sum, because they need the cash. In which case, the new owner makes Bond movies, and quickly.

Or finally, MGM is pushed into bankruptcy, and Bond is forcibly sold to another company at a discount. Bond movies get made, and quickly.

All three of these possibilities are good for Bond fans. So what's the problem? Cheer up

They do need cash, but they also are going to do everything possible to get out of the current mess with Bond still as their property. If they sold Bond off and somehow emerged out of this mess (at least to the point they could continue to finance a few films), the end would not be far off, as Bond has been the only thing keeping MGM afloat for quite some time. Look at their track record over the last decade or so, it hasn't been good at all aside from Bond. If MGM sells Bond off, then they will in effect be telling the world that they're finished as a company and will be closing their doors because their chance at survival will have reached 0%.

[Trident]

I really see little chance they would agree to let Bond go; not unless they've decided to corporately commit suicide.

With respect, I disagree.

Here's the thing: MGM needs cash. The Bond franchise can be the most valuable asset on paper, but unless it's generating cash, there is zero reason for the company to sit on it.

One of three things will happen: MGM will scrape together credit to produce Bond 23 and make some money. In which case, fans get the third Craig movie.

Or, MGM sells off the franchise for a nice sum, because they need the cash. In which case, the new owner makes Bond movies, and quickly.

Or finally, MGM is pushed into bankruptcy, and Bond is forcibly sold to another company at a discount. Bond movies get made, and quickly.

All three of these possibilities are good for Bond fans. So what's the problem? Cheer up

They do need cash, but they also are going to do everything possible to get out of the current mess with Bond still as their property. If they sold Bond off and somehow emerged out of this mess (at least to the point they could continue to finance a few films), the end would not be far off, as Bond has been the only thing keeping MGM afloat for quite some time. Look at their track record over the last decade or so, it hasn't been good at all aside from Bond. If MGM sells Bond off, then they will in effect be telling the world that they're finished as a company and will be closing their doors because their chance at survival will have reached 0%.

Just as I see it.

[tdalton]

Just as I see it.

It's a shame that it's the way that it's probably going to go down, but it's the only reasonable way that I can look at it as well.

MGM really needs Bond right now. Surely they can't count on The Pink Panther 3 (I don't know if it's being made, but I'm just throwing it out there) to keep it afloat. If MGM was looking to get some decent cash flow, they ought to sell off the rights to The Hobbit, which might get them enough overhead to get Bond 23 going. The Hobbit, while a film that will surely be a global mega-blockbuster, is a one-time event. The Bond films, while maybe they won't pull in that kind of money on one film, are a once every 2-3 year deal, which would make them considerably more money in the long run.

Maybe a deal that would give Sony the rights to The Hobbit in return for Sony's help to get MGM and the Bond franchise going in the short term would be the way to go (anything that would get the Bond franchise into Sony's hands again would be more than welcomed by me).

[Trident]

Bond is a topseller and a longseller, which is what makes the series such a valuable asset. The real problem in my opinion is that MGM's debt is for the most part credited not to MGM but to Bond and it's hard to see anything even remotely able to replace the series in MGM's portfolio.

[blueman]

Unlike post-LTK, Bond is hot right now and only going to get hotter - with Craig. Delaying 23 makes no one any money, even with protracted bankruptcy battles not sure why a side deal to make 23 can't get done.

Follow the money.

[Binyamin]

Blueman has it.

The bottom line is, sitting on Bond without doing something with it, is the worst idea. "Reports of Bond's death have been greatly exaggerated."

[tdalton]

Blueman has it.

The bottom line is, sitting on Bond without doing something with it, is the worst idea. "Reports of Bond's death have been greatly exaggerated."

But there's nothing that can be done with Bond if there's no money, which is currently the case with MGM. The best thing for MGM would be to get Bond 23 into production and not sit on the franchise, but that's not a realistic option for them because they don't have anywhere near enough money to move forward with the franchise. They also can't sell the franchise because doing so would mean the absolute end of MGM's existence.

[Loomis]

I really see little chance they would agree to let Bond go; not unless they've decided to corporately commit suicide.

With respect, I disagree.

Here's the thing: MGM needs cash. The Bond franchise can be the most valuable asset on paper, but unless it's generating cash, there is zero reason for the company to sit on it.

One of three things will happen: MGM will scrape together credit to produce Bond 23 and make some money. In which case, fans get the third Craig movie.

Or, MGM sells off the franchise for a nice sum, because they need the cash. In which case, the new owner makes Bond movies, and quickly.

Or finally, MGM is pushed into bankruptcy, and Bond is forcibly sold to another company at a discount. Bond movies get made, and quickly.

All three of these possibilities are good for Bond fans. So what's the problem? Cheer up

Exactly. Some of the drama queening on this thread is hilarious.

[Skudor]

I wish they'd just declare bankruptcy and get it over with. It's pretty obvious that MGM is just not going to work as a going concern.

No need to get too dramatic about the whole thing though, whatever happens I'm sure the worst case scenario is a couple of years delay for the next Bond.

[Germanlady]

If there is anything sure in this world, then its that people always find ways to make money, because that´s what they are interested in PLUS BB and MW actually care for the franchise. So everybody is interested in milking the cow and as fast as possible, whilst its still hot property. I feel, MW has foreseen this and therefore push back the release date to 2011. They are in the business long enough to see the signs of trouble - so there is probably a back up plan.

Makes sense to me that the hunger to make money is actually a good thing for once.

[scaramunga]

The news is not very good for MGM and James Bond!! I'm guessing we will see a break with the films and other James Bond products until some kind of conclusion is reached.

I think this may also explain the lack of updates on the remaining 9 James Bond films on blu ray.

I guess 1990 and 2009 have more in common than I expected!!

Hopefully the James Bond draught will not be more than 6 years!!!!

I'm hoping that there will be more MGM news very shortly. Stay tuned huh?

BTW - There's a very detailed 6 hour documentary about MGM Studios on the forthcoming Wizard of Oz blu ray set that is out on Tuesday.

Edited by scaramunga, 27 September 2009 - 09:45 PM.

[TheREAL008]

What if TPTB went back to making one Bond film a year until MGM were out of the red and out of debt?

It might not be the best of plans, but it could work.

[Tybre]

What if TPTB went back to making one Bond film a year until MGM were out of the red and out of debt?

It might not be the best of plans, but it could work.

They would have to be good films, though. Crank out enough pisses of anually and sooner or later people will catch on and stop going.