477 replies to this topic

[karligula]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but does anyone else find it a bit irritating having to constantly skip past huge chunks of nested quotes from previous posts with a little 'yeah I agree' tagged on the end?

[jaguar007]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but does anyone else find it a bit irritating having to constantly skip past huge chunks of nested quotes from previous posts with a little 'yeah I agree' tagged on the end?

Yeah, I agree

[Simon]

Yup.

[Colossus]

Ditto. Some threads become byzantine labyrinths to wade through.

[Tybre]

Just so long as there isn't a minotaur at the end...

[double o ego]

Anyhoo,

I've been reading numerous reports about how amazing Craig is in his new broadway show and how it's a BO success. With this much positive attention and acclaim, could this further add to a more comfortable release date for Bond 23 in that, should MGM have to sell the rights to Bond, other studios may want to pick it up and put up a hefty offer? It seems Craig as Bond was obviously a success and his career post/outside Bond, particularly with this broadway show is increasing the bankability of his profile.

[Joe Bond]

Anyhoo,

I've been reading numerous reports about how amazing Craig is in his new broadway show and how it's a BO success. With this much positive attention and acclaim, could this further add to a more comfortable release date for Bond 23 in that, should MGM have to sell the rights to Bond, other studios may want to pick it up and put up a hefty offer? It seems Craig as Bond was obviously a success and his career post/outside Bond, particularly with this broadway show is increasing the bankability of his profile.

I would say so.

[Matt_13]

"MGM TO DIE ANOTHER DAY" http://movies.ign.co.../1030740p1.html

[Qwerty]

MGM studio buys more time with lender agreement

Breathing room for beleaguered James Bond studio

[Matt_13]

Alright so what now? Think they'll greenlight Bond?

[SecretAgentFan]

"The Hobbit" and "Bond 23" will possibly be the only films that MGM can greenlight - since they are expected to be successes. But can they really drum up enough cash to do that?

I´m afraid that MGM will cling to Bond as long as they can - and possibly keep any other studio from intervening. Which might push Sony to wait it out until MGM has to sell Bond. Which could spell bad news for "Bond 23". But I hope that´s not the case.

[Trident]

The breathing room MGM has negociated now is just that, a little more time and funds to pay the bills for Ma Bell, the Postal Service, the rented properties and keep the cleaning service showing up each evening. It's nowhere near enough to get Hobbit or Bond to a quick takeoff. Now they will have to find somebody willing to credit these two enterprises with a wounded studio at the helm, which I suppose will result in either the financier demanding a better interest rate and/or more influence in the production, something MGM cannot grant in Bond's case. Situation is still far from solved yet.

[Bucky]

this is bad

[Trident]

this is bad

Not necessarily. It's just not as good as one would have wished for. There is some effort put into getting MGM on track again. It may be that an outsider looking at the situation unemotionally will arrive at the necessary decisions and steps a good deal faster. Whatever the future may bring I'll just repeat here that Bond as a brand (and pretty much the most precious single asset in MGM's portfolio) is the one thing to survive a sinking of the studio almost guaranteed. It's just a question of time, which might have an influence on Craig's tenure. But even in that respect I think now he has the charisma (for lack of a better expression) to come back two, three or even five years later than expected. And honestly, I don't think it will really come to such a prolonged gap.

[karligula]

At first you wonder how a studio with Bond and The Hobbit as assets can end up billions in debt. And then you read that they're currently making 'Hot Tub Time Machine.' Oh dear.

[Peckinpah1976]

I think a lot of their problems have come from business ventures outside the film industry.

[ChandlerBing]

I wish something or someone would put MGM out of our misery and let Sony have Bond. MGM has ceased to be a major player for over 2 decades now. For the sake of humanity, turn the lights out.

[Gabriel]

It's just a question of time, which might have an influence on Craig's tenure. But even in that respect I think now he has the charisma (for lack of a better expression) to come back two, three or even five years later than expected. And honestly, I don't think it will really come to such a prolonged gap.

Trouble is, Craig's looks are aging fast. QoS was only set a couple of hours after the end of CR, but Craig looked at least five years older!! At present rates he'll look ready to retire by the time the next film shows up.

Bloody MGM/UA and co! It's so frustrating that Bond has ended up being saddled with what's now a third-rate dead-weight studio that's been in and out of bankruptcy since the 1970s.

Let's face it: many of the Bond films' biggest hold-backs have been on account of the bunch of goons who have owned MGM. Remember how a con artist waiter managed to buy the studio in the 1980s?

[Joe Bond]

It's just a question of time, which might have an influence on Craig's tenure. But even in that respect I think now he has the charisma (for lack of a better expression) to come back two, three or even five years later than expected. And honestly, I don't think it will really come to such a prolonged gap.

Trouble is, Craig's looks are aging fast. QoS was only set a couple of hours after the end of CR, but Craig looked at least five years older!! At present rates he'll look ready to retire by the time the next film shows up.

Bloody MGM/UA and co! It's so frustrating that Bond has ended up being saddled with what's now a third-rate dead-weight studio that's been in and out of bankruptcy since the 1970s.

Let's face it: many of the Bond films' biggest hold-backs have been on account of the bunch of goons who have owned MGM. Remember how a con artist waiter managed to buy the studio in the 1980s?

Firstly I personally don't see a major difference in his looks between the two films and he certainly does not look 5 years older in QoS. Secondly I am tired of posts that already assumes that MGM is going into bankruptcy, I personally am not going to worry until MGM or other official sources announce MGM has gone into bankruptcy. Sure this agreement with their creditors is short term but they have not gone into bankruptcy yet and may buy them more time to decide what to do about The Hobbit and Bond 23.

[jaguar007]

Trouble is, Craig's looks are aging fast. QoS was only set a couple of hours after the end of CR, but Craig looked at least five years older!! At present rates he'll look ready to retire by the time the next film shows up.

I think the only things that look a little different about Craig between CR and QoS is that he was a bit thinner and his hair a bit longer..

[Joe Bond]

Trouble is, Craig's looks are aging fast. QoS was only set a couple of hours after the end of CR, but Craig looked at least five years older!! At present rates he'll look ready to retire by the time the next film shows up.

I think the only things that look a little different about Craig between CR and QoS is that he was a bit thinner and his hair a bit longer..

Agreed.

[Daddy Bond]

Trouble is, Craig's looks are aging fast. QoS was only set a couple of hours after the end of CR, but Craig looked at least five years older!! At present rates he'll look ready to retire by the time the next film shows up.

I think the only things that look a little different about Craig between CR and QoS is that he was a bit thinner and his hair a bit longer..

Agreed.

There's no way he looks five years older.

[Quantumofsolace007]

So will bond 23 happen with craig?

Also Craig looks good enough that if he keeps doing what he is doing i could concievalbly see him playing bond till his early to mid 50's.

[RivenWinner]

I'm glad to hear that MGM has some breathing room now, but as I much as I hate to say it, I still find it very difficult for them to pull through this new ordeal. The amount of the debt they have, as well as the timeline for it to be paid it off, is not working in their favor.

I've said it before many times, and I'll say it again, MGM/UA has always been my favorite film studio (or rather, studios, if you will, since UA and MGM were at one point different) and it pains me to see them going through such rough times. Which basicailly, has been the past 2 maybe 3 decades.

MGM/UA's current problems are a direct result of careless owners who cared little for the company's well being and future and instead plundered and squandered the studio's assets and film library. I'm specifically looking at Kirk Kerkorian and Ted Turner. But especially Kerkorian.

I was hoping Harry Sloan would turn things around, but alas, things are much more complicated than they seem. MGM should have hired turn around specıalısts much earlier than they did.

I find it interesting that nothing has been said of MGM's new RoboCop film. I'm assuming this one is far off from actually receiving the greenlight. Also, remember among other crappy films like "Hot Tub Time Machine" MGM is also currently filming a remake of "Red Dawn," which presumably should be a mild hit. Also, "Cabin in the Woods" is getting a lot of Internet buzz, and that comes out in Feburary.

Concerning The Hobbit films, does anyone know the percentage breakdown of profits between MGM and WB's New Line Cinema?

[Simon]

As far as Bond is concerned, I am sure Eon would be able to finance a Bond film by themselves by now, surely.

So, MGM agree to Eon stumping up and once the money is in, Eon give MGM a nominal percentage for their good will. But nothing like what they would earn if they were to finance as per normal.

This obviously said with absolutely zero knowledge of film financing, and certainly with no knowledge of just how constricting the MGM/Eon ownership deal is.

[Bucky]

Also, remember among other crappy films like "Hot Tub Time Machine" MGM is also currently filming a remake of "Red Dawn," which presumably should be a mild hit. Also, "Cabin in the Woods" is getting a lot of Internet buzz, and that comes out in Feburary.

I didn't know that it was MGM and UA doing Cabin in the Woods. That is likely going to be the greatest movie ever made and I am looking forward to it very much.

Edited by Bucky, 03 October 2009 - 10:47 PM.

[Peckinpah1976]

As far as Bond is concerned, I am sure Eon would be able to finance a Bond film by themselves by now, surely.

Whatever the company is worth on paper, I would doubt that Eon has enough available cash to finance something as big as a Bond film by itself and besides the terms of MGM's distribution deal would almost certainly forbid this kind of thing anyway.

[Gabriel]

For the Bond series' longevity, the best thing that could happen is that MGM went bust and a bigger, better studio took it on. Even if it was at the cost of a few years without a film and losing Daniel Craig (who I really like!)

[scaramunga]

Article from IGN. Mostly about The Hobbit, but they also mention Bond. I don't see how MGM can survive without James Bond, however I understand that they may need to sell their rights to stay in business.

http://movies.ign.co.../1030881p1.html

Hopefully things are resolved quickly.

[double o ego]

I posted this in the other thread, so I'll post it here too.

http://wearemoviegee...d-distribution/