1025 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Oh, no, not again

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Does anybody have a clear understanding what rights MGM does have - and why SONY was allowed to do the last two films?

My understanding is that EON was delivering the films to be distributed by UA. Since UA folded into MGM (when was that - with "Octopussy"?) they were controlling the distribution rights.

Before '75, Bond belonged to Danjaq, split 50/50 between Saltzman and Broccoli. UA only distributed. Had EON ran into trouble with UA up to that time, they could have taken Bond elsewhere.
Saltzman went bankrupt and had to put his Danjaq share as guarantee. UA bought that half permanently tying the Bond property to the studio.
Krim sold UA in '67 to Transamerica but stayed as chairman. Left in '78 after Transamerica had started meddling too much with the direction of the studio. The new administration screwed up big time with Heaven's Gate and Transamerica sold UA.
MGM bought the UA brand for the same amount they paid UA in distribution fees and pretty much dismantled the studio.
Other UA properties (Pink Panther, Rocky) have had their copyrights renewed as MGM's on subsequent home video releases whereas Bond's still is Danjaq and UA, probably because it is a joint copyright and Danjaq is of course not owned by MGM. In order for EON to get rid of MGM, MGM would have to be willing to let go of the UA copyright altogether. Now, why would they do that? MGM bought UA because of its three properties (Bond, Rocky and Pink) and it's survived pretty much solely on them. If anyone else (like Sony) really wants to get Bond, they should realise they have to buy the whole package (MGM).
So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Daniel will not be returning for bond 23.

'course not. They're gonna call Pierce Brosnan again
Just kidding.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

You could just as easily lay the blame on Michael Cimino for making Heaven's Gate and flushing forty million of UA's (1980) dollars down the toilet, sending them into bankruptcy.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Daniel will not be returning for bond 23.

'course not. They're gonna call Pierce Brosnan again
Just kidding.

I have realized i was drastic in saying that

I sure as hell hope Daniel Craig will return. He is the reason i became a bond fanatic Joined these boards and read the Fleming novels!

[Col. Sun]

Does anybody have a clear understanding what rights MGM does have - and why SONY was allowed to do the last two films?

My understanding is that EON was delivering the films to be distributed by UA. Since UA folded into MGM (when was that - with "Octopussy"?) they were controlling the distribution rights.

Before '75, Bond belonged to Danjaq, split 50/50 between Saltzman and Broccoli. UA only distributed. Had EON ran into trouble with UA up to that time, they could have taken Bond elsewhere.
Saltzman went bankrupt and had to put his Danjaq share as guarantee. UA bought that half permanently tying the Bond property to the studio.
Krim sold UA in '67 to Transamerica but stayed as chairman. Left in '78 after Transamerica had started meddling too much with the direction of the studio. The new administration screwed up big time with Heaven's Gate and Transamerica sold UA.
MGM bought the UA brand for the same amount they paid UA in distribution fees and pretty much dismantled the studio.
Other UA properties (Pink Panther, Rocky) have had their copyrights renewed as MGM's on subsequent home video releases whereas Bond's still is Danjaq and UA, probably because it is a joint copyright and Danjaq is of course not owned by MGM. In order for EON to get rid of MGM, MGM would have to be willing to let go of the UA copyright altogether. Now, why would they do that? MGM bought UA because of its three properties (Bond, Rocky and Pink) and it's survived pretty much solely on them. If anyone else (like Sony) really wants to get Bond, they should realise they have to buy the whole package (MGM).
So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

You are on the money, sir.

Eon may finally have a chance to break the chain which has bound them! Hence today's Press Release. This is about who WINS Bond for the future. Eon know what they are doing. And they are SAVING Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

Does anybody have a clear understanding what rights MGM does have - and why SONY was allowed to do the last two films?

My understanding is that EON was delivering the films to be distributed by UA. Since UA folded into MGM (when was that - with "Octopussy"?) they were controlling the distribution rights.

Before '75, Bond belonged to Danjaq, split 50/50 between Saltzman and Broccoli. UA only distributed. Had EON ran into trouble with UA up to that time, they could have taken Bond elsewhere.
Saltzman went bankrupt and had to put his Danjaq share as guarantee. UA bought that half permanently tying the Bond property to the studio.
Krim sold UA in '67 to Transamerica but stayed as chairman. Left in '78 after Transamerica had started meddling too much with the direction of the studio. The new administration screwed up big time with Heaven's Gate and Transamerica sold UA.
MGM bought the UA brand for the same amount they paid UA in distribution fees and pretty much dismantled the studio.
Other UA properties (Pink Panther, Rocky) have had their copyrights renewed as MGM's on subsequent home video releases whereas Bond's still is Danjaq and UA, probably because it is a joint copyright and Danjaq is of course not owned by MGM. In order for EON to get rid of MGM, MGM would have to be willing to let go of the UA copyright altogether. Now, why would they do that? MGM bought UA because of its three properties (Bond, Rocky and Pink) and it's survived pretty much solely on them. If anyone else (like Sony) really wants to get Bond, they should realise they have to buy the whole package (MGM).
So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

Thanks!

[zencat]

Glad to see a story on Deadline.

Broccoli and Wilson very deliberately have made certain they don't do anything on Bond #23 which ties the movie further to MGM.

Makes perfect sense. They've probably been paying the writers themselves, but they've reached a point now where they have to start hiring production people and having the studio cut checks, but that make's it an MGM movie. So they've stopped.

When this is sorted out, and Bond lands at a new home, I expect we'll see Bond 23 move forward like a rocket.

[DamnCoffee]

This is indeed a really sad time for Bond fans, but, I agree with Zencat. Thank you. Your post has actually made me feel a whole lot better, and confident.

[Lachesis]

Does anybody have a clear understanding what rights MGM does have - and why SONY was allowed to do the last two films?

My understanding is that EON was delivering the films to be distributed by UA. Since UA folded into MGM (when was that - with "Octopussy"?) they were controlling the distribution rights.

Before '75, Bond belonged to Danjaq, split 50/50 between Saltzman and Broccoli. UA only distributed. Had EON ran into trouble with UA up to that time, they could have taken Bond elsewhere.
Saltzman went bankrupt and had to put his Danjaq share as guarantee. UA bought that half permanently tying the Bond property to the studio.
Krim sold UA in '67 to Transamerica but stayed as chairman. Left in '78 after Transamerica had started meddling too much with the direction of the studio. The new administration screwed up big time with Heaven's Gate and Transamerica sold UA.
MGM bought the UA brand for the same amount they paid UA in distribution fees and pretty much dismantled the studio.
Other UA properties (Pink Panther, Rocky) have had their copyrights renewed as MGM's on subsequent home video releases whereas Bond's still is Danjaq and UA, probably because it is a joint copyright and Danjaq is of course not owned by MGM. In order for EON to get rid of MGM, MGM would have to be willing to let go of the UA copyright altogether. Now, why would they do that? MGM bought UA because of its three properties (Bond, Rocky and Pink) and it's survived pretty much solely on them. If anyone else (like Sony) really wants to get Bond, they should realise they have to buy the whole package (MGM).
So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

Thanks for that explanation it makes the situation much clearer.

Do we know it was greed on Saltzman's part though that motivated him? He always comes across to me as one of those entrepenours that just 'has' to be juggling many ideas and can never just be content with one.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Does anybody have a clear understanding what rights MGM does have - and why SONY was allowed to do the last two films?

My understanding is that EON was delivering the films to be distributed by UA. Since UA folded into MGM (when was that - with "Octopussy"?) they were controlling the distribution rights.

Before '75, Bond belonged to Danjaq, split 50/50 between Saltzman and Broccoli. UA only distributed. Had EON ran into trouble with UA up to that time, they could have taken Bond elsewhere.
Saltzman went bankrupt and had to put his Danjaq share as guarantee. UA bought that half permanently tying the Bond property to the studio.
Krim sold UA in '67 to Transamerica but stayed as chairman. Left in '78 after Transamerica had started meddling too much with the direction of the studio. The new administration screwed up big time with Heaven's Gate and Transamerica sold UA.
MGM bought the UA brand for the same amount they paid UA in distribution fees and pretty much dismantled the studio.
Other UA properties (Pink Panther, Rocky) have had their copyrights renewed as MGM's on subsequent home video releases whereas Bond's still is Danjaq and UA, probably because it is a joint copyright and Danjaq is of course not owned by MGM. In order for EON to get rid of MGM, MGM would have to be willing to let go of the UA copyright altogether. Now, why would they do that? MGM bought UA because of its three properties (Bond, Rocky and Pink) and it's survived pretty much solely on them. If anyone else (like Sony) really wants to get Bond, they should realise they have to buy the whole package (MGM).
So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

Thanks!

Welcome. One point I missed. During the post Dalton crisis, EON was very quiet and sheepish, waiting until MGM put their house in order before proceeding. This time it really feels like pressure.

[Col. Sun]

Glad to see a story on Deadline.

Broccoli and Wilson very deliberately have made certain they don't do anything on Bond #23 which ties the movie further to MGM.

Makes perfect sense. They've probably been paying the writers themselves, but they've reached a point now where they have to start hiring production people and having the studio cut checks, but that make's it an MGM movie. So they've stopped.

When this is sorted out, and Bond lands at a new home, I expect we'll see Bond 23 move forward like a rocket.

Absolutely. This also explains the Mendes "creative consultant" deal.

Eon are playing poker and, I think we all know, they are gonna have the winning hand.

Some may think today's press release is bad news -- but I'm of the view, like you I suspect, this is protecting Bond and its future. Eon have done the right thing with this headline grabbing "press release."

And I'm confident Craig knows the game inside and out and will stay on the winning team.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, yeah, there was that. But Ford couldn't elevate the material. 30 years ago he'd have taken clunker dialogue and situations and turned lemons into lemonade. He was too old for this film. It's a young man's game, and he's no spring chicken.

If it´s not on the page... No actor can make material shine more than it manages to already be. It´s just an expression coined by journalists who try to elevate an actor´s status. And Ford´s age did not have anything to do with this at all. In fact, he looked hardly older than in TLC. And in all the good moments of KOTCS he really delivered the same wonderful performance as before.

You may say the actors had nothing to do with the quality of the script, but I could also proffer the possibility that the writers were simply uninspired to be creative armed with the knowledge of who the lead actor was going to be.

This is not how professional writers work. "Ooh, I don´t like the actor - well, I phone it in then." C´mon. Writers not only try to do their best, they have to. Otherwise they get fired. The problem with the films that were mentioned IMO is this: they are sequels to beloved films. How many times can you make the same thing feel fresh enough so that the audience will feel as if they are witness to something new?

Only a reboot can manage that.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Glad to see a story on Deadline.

Broccoli and Wilson very deliberately have made certain they don't do anything on Bond #23 which ties the movie further to MGM.

Makes perfect sense. They've probably been paying the writers themselves, but they've reached a point now where they have to start hiring production people and having the studio cut checks, but that make's it an MGM movie. So they've stopped.

When this is sorted out, and Bond lands at a new home, I expect we'll see Bond 23 move forward like a rocket.

Absolutely. This also explains the Mendes "creative consultant" deal.

Eon are playing poker and, I think we all know, they are gonna have the winning hand.

Some may think today's press release is bad news -- but I'm of the view, like you I suspect, this is protecting Bond and its future. Eon have done the right thing with this headline grabbing "press release."

And I'm confident Craig knows the game inside and out and will stay on the winning team.

EON's press release shows how much serious they're about their business than MGM is. For those who think news is sad, picture this: principal photography halted midway through because of lack of funds. Now, that would have been sad.

[Zorin Industries]

I haven't read all the posts. But scanning them I see a lot of frustration but little understanding. The fact is it is not the Dalton scenario of 89 whatever that was supposed to be. What has happened is that the world has changed. The way movies are going to be made and marketed is changing. Big films like the bond series or star trek may get to continue for a time. But smaller films, that has changed now.

I'm a screen writer. I used to live in hope that I would get a big studio deal. Now that is gone. Like the wind. What happened? A lot of things but at the heart of it is the way the internet is used, or can be, to distribute movies. No more heavy cans of film sent around the country. No more windows either. By "windows" I mean that it used to be a film opened in the domestic theater, then foreign, then paid cable, then VHS or DVD then free TV.

Now someone like me who wants to express themselves releases a film by putting it up on something like 40 or more platforms. Amazon.com, iTunes, youtube, koldcast.tv and on and on. Available all over the world 24/7. The revenue streams from each aren't big, but they add up. Welcome to the new reality. I hope to start making a good living doing this soon.

What this means is that even 2 years ago, MGM would have had no problem selling for $5billion. Now, the company would be lucky to a billion 1.5. In dollars, a currency that is slowly being devalued. We are seeing the shrinking of the entertainment industry; its deflation. MGM will be the first casuality. But the others aren't far behind. The reason MGM can't raise the money they could have 2 years ago is that the money isn't there anymore. No one wants to invest money that doesn't have a clear path of repayment.

There are a couple of things we can do as fans. One of the new things is COD: cinema on demand. Right now, most all of us can go to our like movie palace and ask for a "bond day". The deal is if you and your friends get enough ticket sales together you can go watch your favorite bond films- all day if you want. The local theater may not advertise this but they know about it. And they will do it because they want to sell tickets. All the theater has to do is download the film off the net and away we go. How do they have to pay to download as opposed to paying for shipping large cans of film? Or buying the rights to show it from the studio? They are paying less and that means there is less to be made from distributing movies.

The other thing is called crowd sourcing. Or in our case fan funding. We can use the platform of commandbond.net to raise the money from the fans for bond23. We prepay for our tickets. Now MGM can't raise the "investment" money. But as fans we are not looking to own the rights to the film, we want to see it. That puts us in a very different position than an investment banker. And MGM isn't limited to just selling tickets. For different levels, read that varying amounts or money, you can escalate up the ladder. For $10, you get a ticket to the movie. For $15 you get the download. For $25 you get either one and a crew tee shirt. Up to for $10,000.00 you are an extra and share a line with Daniel Craig! They may want to make that $50,000.00. Whatever. Other performers have used crowd sourcing successfully and released albums, movies and books.

It's possible and we can still get our movie. MGM will get the money they can't raise now. And development on bond23 will continue.

I'll start another thread on this but think about it. What do you say?

How many films have been "funded" that way and reached your local cinema?

"COD" is the key phrase here. And not in the way you envisage.

It's a sweet idea. But it is far from practical.

And Eon do not want to share that diluted ownership / fragmented creative control. Why else do you think they have taken this stance against MGM today?

The revenue streams from each aren't big, but they add up.

If they are not "big", they do not "add up".

And most of the world's acting unions would have something to say if $10K got you a line with Daniel Craig, regardless of your union status. Sorry.

[The Dove]

I was hoping this news from yesterday was only a bad dream..but nope...sad to see it still stands here! Dammit!!

[Zorin Industries]

My reply to Gravity and Rufus is that this isn't a matter of competition among studios and MGM can't compete anymore. There is a change in the way business is done not just in Hollywood but around the world.

And name some titles that have done exactly that?

If anything, Danjaq/Eon are extremely old school in their internal dealings and agendas. Another reason why this is a nice, but very fanciful idea.

So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

Not true or fair.

And it is the "subsidiaries" notion that ruined the creativity of the studios. Not the notion of "self owned".

[Royal Dalton]

So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

Not true or fair.

And it is the "subsidiaries" notion that ruined the creativity of the studios. Not the notion of "self owned".

[Bryce (003)]

Considering it just made my local morning news, Eon has called MGM out.

I don't know what their deal is with MGM or how binding it is, but I suspect that Eon will extricate themselves from the Lion and offer themselves up to any studio that wants to back them.

Frankly, any of the major studios would pay more for Bond than they would for MGM.

IMO, this will all be resolved inside of ten days and 007 will have a new home at some other studio (WB is my bet). I'm sure the phone lines and email are all but burning between Eon and any of the majors. Pre-production and work will be continuing (I don't think it's stopped). The big issue is the date/year for release.

Chiefly, Eon always takes out a big two-pager in the trades when Bond begins production. We'll hear something soon.

[blueman]

Waaalll, it's a business alright. Harry and Cubby both made choices with Bond about putting butts in seats even if Fleming was spinning in his grave by '67 (then stopped for a bit in '69, but started up again in '71 ). They were always showmen and entrepreneurs and wanting to be all that, and for the most part succeeded. Their set-backs are as far reaching as their successes, apparently. Glad Babs (gotta believe it's more her than Mikey, who's been around the company much longer but not had this kinda strong impact IMO) is flexing her muscle, very timely and bodes very well indeed for the future of Bond.

About time.

[Zorin Industries]

Pre-production and work will be continuing (I don't think it's stopped).

Of course it hasn't. It never does.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

My reply to Gravity and Rufus is that this isn't a matter of competition among studios and MGM can't compete anymore. There is a change in the way business is done not just in Hollywood but around the world.

And name some titles that have done exactly that?

If anything, Danjaq/Eon are extremely old school in their internal dealings and agendas. Another reason why this is a nice, but very fanciful idea.

So we can thank Saltzman for being so incredibly greedy he couldn't be happy making millions with Bond, he had to go make two movies in between each Bond (and neglect Bond, to Cubby's annoyance) and play at being high finance with Technicolor. He alone started the series of events that have led to today's debacle. I had seen this coming for years since MGM stubbornly insisted in being self-owned in an era all studios are subsidiaries.

Not true or fair.

And it is the "subsidiaries" notion that ruined the creativity of the studios. Not the notion of "self owned".

Basically, you say nothing, just react negatively to a comment without presenting a valid counterargument. "Not true and not fair" reads like someone who doesn't want to admit a painful truth. There's no development whatsoever.
Fact is, major studios these days belong to bigger companies whether we like it or not. I'm not saying MGM couldn't stay independent but it should have acknowledge it's no longer a major studio a long time ago. It doesn't even own its own library! It reminds me of David Selznick, pretending to be big fish but having to rent Hitchcock to other studios to finance his very few productions.
And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite. He didn't want the guy he'd been forced to partner with owning the whole thing but indeed Broccoli devoted his life to Bond barely doing anything else. Had Saltzman put all his attentions to Bond, he'd have never gone bankrupt but I really don't even believe he liked Bond that much. He took the option because he was advised it'd be a good deal but was so uninterested in the stories to allow Mankowitz and maibaum turn in a DN draft with no Dr No in it! (he was in charge of script supervision not Broccoli). He had no eye for business picking a crappy Bob Hope project over the Beatles. Cubby went into Bond because he liked the novels not because he was told. Some time ago I saw a copy of Thrilling Cities personally inscribed to Saltzman by Fleming offered at a used bookshop. That's how much he liked the whole thing.

[zencat]

Pre-production and work will be continuing (I don't think it's stopped).

Of course it hasn't. It never does.

Oh, I think it has stopped. But I think certain production people are probably being held on retainer.

So just when life couldn't get any better for P&W, they are now being paid by Eon to do nothing.

[AliasTheJester]

I don't know if it's true, but it certainly isn't entirely fair. Saltzman wanting to do things outside of Bond wasn't necessarily greed, at the very least I doubt it was just greed; who doesn't want to do more than one thing with their time especially if you had the kind of power and resources Saltzman had?

[Automan]

Pre-production and work will be continuing (I don't think it's stopped).

Of course it hasn't. It never does.

Oh, I think it has stopped. But I think certain production people are probably being held on retainer.

So just when life couldn't get any better for P&W, they are now being paid by Eon to do nothing.

I sure hope you guys are right.

[Zorin Industries]

Basically, you say nothing, just react negatively to a comment without presenting a valid counterargument. "Not true and not fair" reads like someone who doesn't want to admit a painful truth. There's no development whatsoever.
Fact is, major studios these days belong to bigger companies whether we like it or not. I'm not saying MGM couldn't stay independent but it should have acknowledge it's no longer a major studio a long time ago. It doesn't even own its own library! It reminds me of David Selznick, pretending to be big fish but having to rent Hitchcock to other studios to finance his very few productions.
And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite. He didn't want the guy he'd been forced to partner with owning the whole thing but indeed Broccoli devoted his life to Bond barely doing anything else. Had Saltzman put all his attentions to Bond, he'd have never gone bankrupt but I really don't even believe he liked Bond that much. He took the option because he was advised it'd be a good deal but was so uninterested in the stories to allow Mankowitz and maibaum turn in a DN draft with no Dr No in it! (he was in charge of script supervision not Broccoli). He had no eye for business picking a crappy Bob Hope project over the Beatles. Cubby went into Bond because he liked the novels not because he was told. Some time ago I saw a copy of Thrilling Cities personally inscribed to Saltzman by Fleming offered at a used bookshop. That's how much he liked the whole thing.

I don't think the film industry needed MGM to "acknowledge it's no longer a major studio a long time ago". The industry did not need MGM to do that. The industry knows. Why else do you think it is apparently so hard to sell MGM? Everyone knows its problems - problems which date back decades.

You say Saltzman "had no eye for business picking a crappy Bob Hope project over the Beatles". It is no secret Harry Salztman (via your example) did not 'get' The Beatles (he couldn't see why Paul McCartney and Wings Bond song was highly suitable for starters). But producing titles such as LOOK BACK IN ANGER, SATURDAY NIGHT SUNDAY MORNING, THE IPCRESS FILE and THE ENTERTAINER is not quite the output of a man who had "no eye for business" or the cinematic zeitgeist he was working in.

And there were other reasons why Saltzman finally moved on - regardless of where or who he sold his stake in Bond to (the fragile state of the health of his wife and mother of his teenage kids for starters - kids who continue to be friends of Cubby Broccoli's family and children).

Is that enough "counterargument" for now...?

[Klaus_Hergesheimer]

Looks like I should have made my stop over to MGM to check on Radiation Levels....


Things have been awfully busy in G-Sector.

Edited by Klaus_Hergesheimer, 20 April 2010 - 05:50 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Looks like I should have made my stop over to MGM to check on Radiation Levels....


Things have been awfully busy in G-Sector.

LOVE the username!!

So just when life couldn't get any better for P&W, they are now being paid by Eon to do nothing.

It happens...

[Rufus Ffolkes]

And IT IS SALTZMAN's FAULT ALL RIGHT. Saltzman could have done the honourable thing when he needed money and sold his half of Danjaq to Broccoli but he wouldn't, I guess out of spite.

And given that they were equal partners, how exactly do you think that Cubby could have raised the money to buy Saltzman out without partnering with someone else?

[SecretAgentFan]

Putting all the blame on Saltzman, not knowing the myriad factors for his decisions back then, is unfair.

And where does it lead us if we could say: Yes, here´s the guy who´s to blame? Does it give us BOND 23 any sooner? C´mon.

The situation right now is a difficult legal mess. But it will be sorted out. There´s no way creditors and banks will allow MGM to continue that much longer. It´s a good thing that EON is in such great shape right now. JAMES BOND is a brand everybody wants to continue and make money with. In fact, with the massive success of Craig´s last two films, JAMES BOND is hotter than ever. (I guess after LTK many studios would not have wanted to be first in line in order to continue with BOND.)