55 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Sony wants to stick around with James Bond after MGM Studios sale

'We would like to be as involved with James Bond as we're permitted to be...'

[The Shark]

I bet they would...

Cut 'em loose.

[Syndicate]

I don't care about Sony or want them part of the James Bond movie. James Bond is not their's So whoever the new owner of MGM, and don't want them they should just leave, and I would be MGM's side if that do happen. I don't mine bringing back the UA logo before the movie after the MGM logo. The Sony logo just don't look right at all being part of the James Bond movies and some of the other MGM movies classic or new.

[jaguar007]

I don't care about Sony or want them part of the James Bond movie. James Bond is not their's So whoever the new owner of MGM, and don't want them they should just leave, and I would be MGM's side if that do happen. I don't mine bringing back the UA logo before the movie after the MGM logo. The Sony logo just don't look right at all being part of the James Bond movies and some of the other MGM movies classic or new.

You do realize that MGM had nothing to do with the Bond films until the mid-80s.

I don't care whose logo is at the beginning of a Bond film - as long as we get EON producing Bond films. I'll take the last couple with Sony's involvement over the previous few MGM Bond films any day.

[Trident]

Well, I'm baffled. Astonishing, really. Hadn't the slightest there really exist people who actually look at those bloody logos. And not just look, but also care for them. Over my head. Couldn't care less, personally. About as important to me as the question whether the porter of the Blades is wearing long-johns.

[captnash2]

sony would love to still be in the spy movie business-they even revived 'xxx' franchise in case they were shut out of future bond films.

having won the long battle to own piece of bond, which involved joing forces with kevin mcclory, they would be loath to be out of the loop again.

[Zorin Industries]

Better news...

[Dell Deaton]

Well, I'm baffled. Astonishing, really. Hadn't the slightest there really exist people who actually look at those bloody logos. And not just look, but also care for them. Over my head. Couldn't care less, personally. About as important to me as the question whether the porter of the Blades is wearing long-johns.

And, on the other hand-- I have never understood how anyone could truly appreciate the James Bond as envisioned by both Ian Fleming and Albert R. Broccoli without a study of its brand associations.

For reference, I like "How to Write a Thriller" (SHOW, August 1962), by Ian Fleming.

[SecretAgentFan]

Fantastic! Sony did a great job with CR and QOS. I absolutely hope that they will be able to help the next Bond films into theaters.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Fantastic! Sony did a great job with CR and QOS. I absolutely hope that they will be able to help the next Bond films into theaters.

Agreed

[Ambler]

Fantastic! Sony did a great job with CR and QOS. I absolutely hope that they will be able to help the next Bond films into theaters.

Yeah, fantastic.

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Agreed with the sentiments here, if the current Sony execs continue with Bond I wouldn't be worried.

[SecretAgentFan]

Fantastic! Sony did a great job with CR and QOS. I absolutely hope that they will be able to help the next Bond films into theaters.

Yeah, fantastic.

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

Don´t worry, Herr Ambler.

[Trident]

Well, I'm baffled. Astonishing, really. Hadn't the slightest there really exist people who actually look at those bloody logos. And not just look, but also care for them. Over my head. Couldn't care less, personally. About as important to me as the question whether the porter of the Blades is wearing long-johns.

And, on the other hand-- I have never understood how anyone could truly appreciate the James Bond as envisioned by both Ian Fleming and Albert R. Broccoli without a study of its brand associations.

For reference, I like "How to Write a Thriller" (SHOW, August 1962), by Ian Fleming.

Well, I was of course referring to that piece of film-before-the-film, you know, after the commercials and teasers, when the lights go completely dark. I'm told (wouldn't know for myself, I keep sleeping until the titles roll) there are a number of names thrown at audiences, SURROUND, DOLBY, SONY andwhathaveyou. Apparently, also MGM, with a nice lion, roaringly laughing his dents of, much good has it done them.

[zencat]

I'd love to see Sony stay in the Bond business.

[double o ego]

I don't care about Sony or want them part of the James Bond movie. James Bond is not their's So whoever the new owner of MGM, and don't want them they should just leave, and I would be MGM's side if that do happen. I don't mine bringing back the UA logo before the movie after the MGM logo. The Sony logo just don't look right at all being part of the James Bond movies and some of the other MGM movies classic or new.

At this point, I couldn't care less if it was Oscar the grouch's trash bin as the opening logo for a Bond movie. I just want this mess to be over so we can have these Bond movies rolling out.

[jaguar007]

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

and what makes Sony any different than any other movie studio in that regard?

[Zorin Industries]

Fantastic! Sony did a great job with CR and QOS. I absolutely hope that they will be able to help the next Bond films into theaters.

Yeah, fantastic.

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

Oh please. What a rubbish sentiment. Utter nonsense and clearly the words of someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about.

[Ambler]

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

and what makes Sony any different than any other movie studio in that regard?

Nothing. That's why I can't see why anyone should care whether or not Sony's involvement continues.

Oh and Zorin, have you been tested for Aspergers? Just a thought.

[The Shark]

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

and what makes Sony any different than any other movie studio in that regard?

Nothing. That's why I can't see why anyone should care whether or not Sony's involvement continues.

Oh and Zorin, have you been tested for Aspergers? Just a thought.

Ouch. Time to get out the DSM-IV?

[SecretAgentFan]

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

and what makes Sony any different than any other movie studio in that regard?

Nothing. That's why I can't see why anyone should care whether or not Sony's involvement continues.

Oh and Zorin, have you been tested for Aspergers? Just a thought.

C´mon. Do you really think that´s funny? You seem to get off on insulting people, then hiding behind the explanation that you only employed irony.

Yes, it´s the internet. Yes, you are not the only one to do so. But really - why don´t you try to bring something valuable to the discussion? Instead you´re just trying to get attention, like a school bully who thinks misbehaving is his only chance at getting noticed.

Zorin is always protecting our little community here by contributing measured and informed arguments. Attacking him is totally uncalled for. And trying to make fun of him by asking him whether he is suffering from a disease is just tasteless.

[Mr. Somerset]

Love to see SONY stick by Bond if it results in the next film being greenlit soon for a 2011 release.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

So if the greedy bastards want Bond that badly, why don't they buy MGM instead of waiting until the mess gets cleared to sink their teeth into somebody else's cash cow? After all, Sony's cut from CR and QOS didn't exactly help MGM's financial situation.
This is strongly reminiscent of the 1989-95 hiatus. The guy who was buying MGM wanted to pay for it by selling the company's assets. Sony are most certainly the worst that's happened to Bond and don't deserved to be associated to the brand. Columbia was too bloody cheap to invest in Bond in '61 after a decade's association with Cubby's Warwick films. Also they have a policy of not including trailers on their dvd's. Sod'em.

[Zorin Industries]

Zorin, have you been tested for Aspergers? Just a thought.

I have been tested for a few things in my life but exhibiting major difficulties in social interaction as well as restricted and very unusual patterns of behaviour is not one of them. You?

[blueman]

Any producing partner is gonna be in it to make money. Sony did fine with the last two.

[danslittlefinger]

Here's a thought: How bad would Bond be without Sony?

[The Shark]

Here's a thought: How bad would Bond be without Sony?

At least we would have colourful, imaginative, and inspired posters, along with decent special features on our DVDs.

[Mr. Somerset]

I must agree the initial dvds for CR and QoS left a bit to be desired. I loved the 3 disc dvd for CR. I do hope for a better QoS release with extras, commentary and the deleted scenes.

[stromberg]

Here's a thought: How bad would Bond be without Sony?

At least we would have colourful, imaginative, and inspired posters, along with decent special features on our DVDs.

Really? How do you know? Just curious...

[jaguar007]

Notice that people complain about how "SONY" at first released "a less than packed full of bonuses" DVD of CR only to release a more complete version later making us double dip. Yet they forget that MGM first released several "basic" Bond films on DVD, then released the "Special Edition" and then the "Ultimate Edition" of the films on DVD.