477 replies to this topic

[Bucky]

as long as fox is not involved with the production in any way.

[scaramunga]

Fox would be a great stable studio for James Bond. Will this also impact the other 9 films on blu ray in any way?

[RivenWinner]

Jeez, I hope this is just a rumor and stupid speculation alone. I would hate for Bond to go over to Fox. I can't stand Rothman and the way he runs things over there, and yes, I know EON always has full creative control, but I just don't want them associated with Fox.

Hopefully this rumor is false. It is an easy rumor to come up with, since Fox has been handling MGM's home distribution (DVD, Blu-Ray, etc) for several years now. There's the connection.

Sony remains the most viable and obvious choice for Bond to move to, if in the event that MGM has to sell it. They co-produced and co-distributed the last two films, and they own a 20% stake in MGM.

But again, I stress the following: Bond is MGM's greatest asset, and due to the difficulty they're in, they might have to sell the property, but at what cost? Removing Bond from MGM would be a direct blow to the studio, and severely devaluing it. Obviously, MGM hasn't been a major for sometime, but it has declined considerably since the 1990s and early 2000s in terms of quality and output. Selling Bond at this point in time would essentially regulate them to nothing but an over-glorified art house studio.

They know the situation they're in, and they,re going to hold on to Bond as long as they can. I know The Hobbit films are going to bring in loads of cash, but in terms of long term viability, Bond has that beat. Furthermore, MGM doesn't retain all the profit gained from The Hobbit films; they've got to split it with WB (anyone know the percentage splits?). Granted, MGM needs cash ASAP, and at this point in time it seems that the first Hobbit film will be out before Bond 23. Still, I would consider selling The Hobbit rights at a hefty price tag.

+++++++++++EDIT : +++++++++

I just reread the article more closely, and it states that Bond is setting up at Fox for marketing and distribution. In other words, MGM is not selling the property at all, they're just entering a deal like they did with Sony with CR and QoS, where Fox chips in on marketing and distributing the film (and no doubt throwing cash in to produce it with MGM). This I could see happen, however, if MGM is doing with the property, it makes me wonder why they don't just go ahead and continue working with Sony?

Edited by RivenWinner, 07 October 2009 - 01:52 AM.

[Gabriel]

Fox would be a great stable studio for James Bond. Will this also impact the other 9 films on blu ray in any way?

Fox would be a disaster: no self-respecting filmmakers will work for the current regime!

[J J]

Fox would be a great stable studio for James Bond. Will this also impact the other 9 films on blu ray in any way?

Fox would be a disaster: no self-respecting filmmakers will work for the current regime!

Jim Cameron, anyone?!

[RivenWinner]

As mentioned in the other thread, this rumor has been officially denied by both MGM and Fox and I'm glad too, although I never really believed it.


I had mentioned a few films above that MGM has in the pipes, (Red Dawn, Hot Tub Time Machine, Cabin in the Woods) and I had a few more come to mind. I had forgot to mention Kevin James' "The Zookeeper" which is due out next year. These films mentioned are either completed projects or are currently being filmed, and all are expected for 2010.

The following are operating in limbo, as far as I know:

Aronofsky's "RoboCop" reboot/remake/sequel/whatever
"The Three Stooges" (sigh, yeah, I know)
"Pinkville" Oliver Stone was going to do a Vietnam flick for UA
"Jeepers Creepers 3" Supposedly in development for the past 4 years
"Poltergeist" reboot/remake/re-imagining/whatever. (MGM has next November, 2010 as the release date, so I guess they want this one fast tracked.
-There was also an animated film about Paul Bunyan I recall reading about sometime ago.

While 2009 was certainly a sleeper year for MGM, and certainly one to forget about, they have several projects in place for 2010. Now weather are not they're good films or economically viable remains to be seen.

It seems that MGM waited for the wrong time to relaunch UA when it did several years ago with Tom Cruise. Nothing has really come of that. "Lions for Lambs" was a flop, and "Valkyrie" was a modest hit, one that probably should have performed better. But that's it. UA's had several films in the pipeline, but they've all fallen through. They've got "Cabin in the Woods" coming out soon, but MGM took care of most of that. From what I understand, the $500 million that was raised 2-3 years ago for UA has all been funneled to keep MGM functioning. This has already been discussed before, but MGM may have to sell of United Artists. I'm sure they don't want to, but it might be something they are considering. Keep in mind that if they do so, they will certainly retain all the rights to previous UA films. However, United Artists hold copyright over Bond (if you look closely at the fine legal print on Bond materiel, they continue to be credited) so I guess the copyright would go on with them as well, if they were to be sold. If that is the case, MGM won't want to do that.

[Zorin Industries]

Fox would be a great stable studio for James Bond. Will this also impact the other 9 films on blu ray in any way?

Fox would be a disaster: no self-respecting filmmakers will work for the current regime!

Jim Cameron, anyone?!

Yes, and have you seen the trailer for AVATAR... Cameron's BARON MUNCHAUSEN I would say...

[J J]

Fox would be a great stable studio for James Bond. Will this also impact the other 9 films on blu ray in any way?

Fox would be a disaster: no self-respecting filmmakers will work for the current regime!

Jim Cameron, anyone?!

Yes, and have you seen the trailer for AVATAR... Cameron's BARON MUNCHAUSEN I would say...

You're entitled to your opinion on that trailer, but you'd better believe that that film is 100% Cameron with little or no Fox interference... what I'm trying to say is that given the right powerhouse production company (like Lightstorm or EON) any studio will give them pretty much free reigns.

[Gabriel]

Yeah, but Cameron's a rarity: a director who makes, at best, a couple of films a decade.

And Avatar, so far, looks bloody awful!

Fox have a terrible rep for interfering with movies and wrecking them.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

MGM Studio headed for sale

Studio library, logo may be auctioned off soon

[RivenWinner]

Oh dear.

Honestly, for all the love and passion I have for this historic studio---who didn't see this coming? MGM's debt is massive, and they only have like another year or so to pay it off. It's just not going to happen, especially with their low output of films. I mean really--"Fame" is all they released this year. Is that worthy of a major studio? This is just going to be a complete mess of things, mark my words.

I hope everything gets sold off in one piece, but I doubt it will. I don't want the library to be sold somewhere, then the logo somewhere else and then United Artists to some other random place.

You know what else annoys me? Kerkorian. This old scumbag is thinking of buying the MGM logo [again]---really? Can't he just go off and live on some private island the rest of his last few years, rather than essentially taking and beating the dead corpse of a studio that he was essientially responsible for killing? Man. I hate these types of super billainores.

Hopefully TimeWarner will step up and just buy everything out right. I mean, they already control MGM's older film library, so it would be a good fit for them.

[SecretAgentFan]

I hope that the sale will happen smoothly and quickly so that BOND 23 can remain on course for the planned 2011 release.

But I´m beginning to wonder how many Bond films Craig actually will get to make. In 2011 Craig will be 43. If BOND 24 is released two years later he will be 45. If it´s three years he will be 46. Add another two or three years for BOND 25 and Craig is 48/49. That would mean he could be doing five Bond films. Unless he decides to quit after his contract for four films has expired.

Of course, this is just a fan speaking. Financially, it probably makes sense to release Bond films not every two years but wait for the hunger to get bigger again. BOND 23 will be more successful due to the longer absence of a Bond film in theatres.

But to get less Craig-Bond films just feels sad to me...

[Double-Oh Agent]

So it would appear that the end could be in sight. My question is, why did MGM buy themselves out from Sony in the first place? Here we are less than one year later and MGM looks like it has to sell itself again. Now, they'll get even less money in this poor economy than what they bought the company back for. Great business decision! I feared this would happen when they bought back their "independence." Yeah, they've really done well with one film this year and two next year--none of which looks all that interesting.

I've always liked the MGM and UA logos/association with Bond, but now I'm to the point that they're lost causes and wish the Bond series would go back to Sony who helped oversee a fantastic job on Casino Royale. Hopefully, Sony decides to step in and buy MGM, but it doesn't sound like they'll do that from the article, and who can blame them after already doing so once and losing it back to MGM?

I just wish this never-ending MGM bankruptcy saga would finally stop. Bond and EON deserve better.

[double o ego]

I hope that the sale will happen smoothly and quickly so that BOND 23 can remain on course for the planned 2011 release.

But I´m beginning to wonder how many Bond films Craig actually will get to make. In 2011 Craig will be 43. If BOND 24 is released two years later he will be 45. If it´s three years he will be 46. Add another two or three years for BOND 25 and Craig is 48/49. That would mean he could be doing five Bond films. Unless he decides to quit after his contract for four films has expired.

Of course, this is just a fan speaking. Financially, it probably makes sense to release Bond films not every two years but wait for the hunger to get bigger again. BOND 23 will be more successful due to the longer absence of a Bond film in theatres.

But to get less Craig-Bond films just feels sad to me...

Doing 4 or 5 Bond films isn't a bad thing.

[Trident]

High time this drama ends, the sooner the better. I'm just not sure it will really be over with a single sell-out. This may actually take considerable time, despite all the pressure to move on.

[Gabriel]

Thank God! Good riddance to bad rubbish! The sooner MGM's assests get sold off to people that can afford to own them the better. Hopefully Sony will bag the Bond films!

I'm all in favour of MGM as a great historical studio, but the last thirty years have been a farce! The Studio's like a sick dog. Someone should take it round the back of a barn and put a bullet in its head!

Edited by Gabriel, 12 November 2009 - 12:13 PM.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Finally! MGM's acquisition of United Artists in 1981 is one of the worst things to happen to the Bond series. Here's hoping Sony or Warner pick up the rights.

[Trident]

Finally! MGM's acquisition of United Artists in 1981 is one of the worst things to happen to the Bond series. Here's hoping Sony or Warner pick up the rights.

A strong and reliable partner would be the ideal thing for the series in the current state of affairs. But why not does EON try to get their child back entirely into their own hands? I know, creatively they have every freedom with EOn having last say about nearly every aspect of the films and their respective studio partner paying the bills without calling the shots. But couldn't EON buy back the missing part and then rent out the studio involvement for, say, two to three films? And then put the contract back on the market for another stint?

[Rufus Ffolkes]

But why not does EON try to get their child back entirely into their own hands? I know, creatively they have every freedom with EOn having last say about nearly every aspect of the films and their respective studio partner paying the bills without calling the shots. But couldn't EON buy back the missing part and then rent out the studio involvement for, say, two to three films? And then put the contract back on the market for another stint?

I'd assume that EON doesn't have, or have access to, the kind of money needed to snap up the full rights. I've read that MGM's rights to Bond alone could be worth up to $1.5 billion.

[Trident]

But why not does EON try to get their child back entirely into their own hands? I know, creatively they have every freedom with EOn having last say about nearly every aspect of the films and their respective studio partner paying the bills without calling the shots. But couldn't EON buy back the missing part and then rent out the studio involvement for, say, two to three films? And then put the contract back on the market for another stint?

I'd assume that EON doesn't have, or have access to, the kind of money needed to snap up the full rights. I've read that MGM's rights to Bond alone could be worth up to $1.5 billion.

It perhaps (for 'perhaps' read 'most likely' here ) would need some extra 'help', but on the whole I could see EON opening up a wider range for their franchise. The temporary Sony involvement has shown that studios are willing to pay even for a slice of the deal a considerable sum and can still make a decent profit. So why not keep the system?

The model would have the advantage of film Bond being entirely in the hands of the ones who make all decisions for the series anyway. The studio involvement is mainly for providing the funds for each venture. Given the changing fortunes of many big companies, I think it could be a good move towards stability if the financial side was sourced out only on a limited basis, giving the franchise the freedom to move on whenever the need arises.

And, if indeed EON ponders such ideas, when if not now, in an atmosphere of crisis that would make the deal a whole lot cheaper than it would be at the height of economic prosperity?

[zencat]

If anyone is feeling sad about the death of the great MGM of yesteryear -- don't. Not many people realize the real MGM -- the MGM of Louis B Mayer and the Golden Age of Hollywood -- is a hotel company and doing very well (MGM Grand in Vegas, for example). That company leased or sold the name and logo to a new production entity in the 80s, who then acquired UA, etc, and continued making movies under the MGM name. This is why the library of this MGM only goes back to the 80s. You'll notice in the article it says Kerkorian is considering buying back the logo, no doubt to lease it once again to a production entry who can then become "MGM". Curious, eh?

[Trident]

If anyone is feeling sad about the death of the great MGM of yesteryear -- don't. Not many people realize the real MGM -- the MGM of Louis B Mayer and the Golden Age of Hollywood -- is a hotel company and doing very well (MGM Grand in Vegas, for example). That company leased or sold the name and logo to a new production entity in the 80s, who then acquired UA, etc, and continued making movies under the MGM name. This is why the library of this MGM only goes back to the 80s. You'll notice in the article it says Kerkorian is considering buying back the logo, no doubt to lease it once again to a production entry who can then become "MGM". Curious, eh?

You mean 'MGM is dead, long live MGM!'?

Or 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'?

Hope we won't get fooled again...

[dinovelvet]

Buzz is that Lionsgate is interested in buying.

[jaguar007]

Buzz is that Lionsgate is interested in buying.

the whole of MGM or just parts of it (like Bond)?

[dinovelvet]

Buzz is that Lionsgate is interested in buying.

the whole of MGM or just parts of it (like Bond)?

"Lionsgate has expressed interest in buying MGM studios."

from deadlinehollywooddaily.com

Obviously this means Bond 23 will feature torture pørn, and Jason Statham

[Matt_13]

Buzz is that Lionsgate is interested in buying.

the whole of MGM or just parts of it (like Bond)?

"Lionsgate has expressed interest in buying MGM studios."

from deadlinehollywooddaily.com

Obviously this means Bond 23 will feature torture pørn, and Jason Statham

LOL

[scaramunga]

Looking forward to MGM / SPECTRE being sold to another studio. Ready to get those last 9 Bond films on blu ray too...

[Qwerty]

Lions Gate expresses an interest in buying MGM

...but only if the price is right

[Cody]

Lionsgate, yearly 007 movies! "If it's Thanksgiving, it must be Bond."

[Safari Suit]

Obviously this means Bond 23 will feature torture pørn, and Jason Statham

And Tyler Perry in a fat suit as the Bond girl.

Lionsgate, yearly 007 movies! "If it's Thanksgiving, it must be Bond."

They shouldn't crank them out at that rate. They'd just end up with a lot of turkeys.