Bond 23 delayed indefinitely
#841
Posted 05 July 2010 - 04:54 PM
#842
Posted 05 July 2010 - 04:58 PM
http://www.variety.c...amp;ref=bd_film
#843
Posted 05 July 2010 - 04:59 PM
They better be denied it, because this is getting beyond a
#844
Posted 05 July 2010 - 06:08 PM
At what point will MGM realize they are dead and should just sell everything (including Bond) If Bond got sold tomorrow there might be a chance of this Quantum story continuing and a film coming out either 2011 or 2012.
If it got sorted tomorrow, it is FAR from over for Bond's cinematic sabbatical.
#845
Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:16 PM
Well, surprise, surprise! MGM is asking for yet another debt extension:
http://www.variety.c...amp;ref=bd_film
Interesting. It seems the deadlines continue to be extended.
I must say, this has been a really boring story to follow, but I continue to as it has to be resolved before Bond can continue. Not just Bond 23, but also the remaining Bond films that have not been issued on blu ray..
Seems like MGM is in a really hard place. Selling Bond and the Hobbit would raise income, but would not cover the debts from what I've been reading. Also, as few of films that MGM releases they really need Bond and The Hobbit if MGM is to continue as a functional studio.
I found the new story about Bond 23 being cancelled very interesting as well. I wonder if Danjac is continuing to push MGM as well.
Hopefully there isn't another extension in July for the debt payments and that they can get things resolved and Bond 23 can get going again. Even if it's with a new studio.
#846
Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:19 PM
Edited by Germanlady, 05 July 2010 - 07:20 PM.
#847
Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:25 PM
#848
Posted 05 July 2010 - 07:33 PM
The story regarding the crew being fired is nonsense - you don't hire a crew until you have a finalized script, principal cast and, most importantly, funding in place.
That´s what I thought - so since THIS is claimed to be the SOURCE of it all - how much of it can be true and BTW, what IS the difference of putting a prod on ice and cancelling it? I don´t think, they will throw away the draft and everything they already have.
#849
Posted 05 July 2010 - 08:06 PM
By the time the smoke clears, it will be time for the return of the real James Bond and we will be rid of the short, ugly, classless troll once and for all.
Funny how all the actors seem to end their 007 tenure on a stinker..................
#850
Posted 05 July 2010 - 08:07 PM
#851
Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:14 PM
3...2...1...

They did a Bond edition of 3-2-1 back in 1984. It starred Don Estelle as 003 1/2.
One of the prizes was a television, a video recorder and a copy of Octopussy.
#852
Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:17 PM
Great news!
By the time the smoke clears, it will be time for the return of the real James Bond and we will be rid of the short, ugly, classless troll once and for all.
So where are you going?
#853
Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:39 PM
The film never started official production at Pinewood so there was no crew to 'lay off'.When they say, they told the crew, its over - I don´t understand that, because I don´t think, they have been sitting in Pinewood waiting for things to happen. Any work has been stopped for months - and surely those people already found other projects or are they paid to just sit around waiting - tied to Bond?
#854
Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:46 PM
Great news!
By the time the smoke clears, it will be time for the return of the real James Bond and we will be rid of the short, ugly, classless troll once and for all.
Oh the irony.,,,
#855
Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:47 PM
Into the toilet, where he belongs?So where are you going?Great news!
By the time the smoke clears, it will be time for the return of the real James Bond and we will be rid of the short, ugly, classless troll once and for all.
#856
Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:54 PM
Bankruptcy can be a process that's hard to predict. One option is what's called a "pre-packaged" bankruptcy where the creditors come to agreement about the details of a restructured company ahead of time. Usually, in these cases, the time in bankruptcy court is relatively short.
If there isn't such an agreement in place, it's hard to tell.
The company that controls Philadelphia's two daily newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, filed for bankruptcy. Management lost control of the company during bankruptcy proceedings.
General Motors spent 40 days in bankruptcy court, but it had the U.S. government providing a financial bailout. Even then, there were some major changes (the CEO resigned under U.S. government pressure).
#857
Posted 05 July 2010 - 10:31 PM
Great news!
By the time the smoke clears, it will be time for the return of the real James Bond and we will be rid of the short, ugly, classless troll once and for all.
I respect your opinion, but the way you voiced it, was really rather rude.
#859
Posted 05 July 2010 - 11:49 PM
#860
Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:22 AM
The question was asked what happens if MGM goes into bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy can be a process that's hard to predict. One option is what's called a "pre-packaged" bankruptcy where the creditors come to agreement about the details of a restructured company ahead of time. Usually, in these cases, the time in bankruptcy court is relatively short.
If there isn't such an agreement in place, it's hard to tell.
The company that controls Philadelphia's two daily newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, filed for bankruptcy. Management lost control of the company during bankruptcy proceedings.
General Motors spent 40 days in bankruptcy court, but it had the U.S. government providing a financial bailout. Even then, there were some major changes (the CEO resigned under U.S. government pressure).
So, as I understand it, Warner would buy MGM at 1.5 billion but insist on a pre-packaged administration/bankrupcy, so the debt is effectively written off. The creditors get some of the money fronted up paid by the buyer (say 30 cents in the dollar) and MGMs assets are started again with a clean slate.
The annual interest on the 3.7 billion debt is 250 million, so I don't know how much longer this consortium are exploring other alternatives, a sale or merger with Summit or Spyglass to raise some cash for films so they can make a profit again. If it goes on say a year, they would have to make some nice profit on a bond and hobbit to get the loss of the 250 mill they are losing each year. Ideally for Bond I suppose is the scenario where they cannot find other alternatives and take the Time Warner bid of 1.5 billion. That would mean the future of the series is secure in the short term. I suppose they can wait a couple of years or even 3 years, Craig is 42, so even if they get another out of him released when he is 44 or 45, there's a possibility of a 4th(where Craig will be leaving the stunts to the stuntmen ?)
Or they come up with some sort of Co-production deal with Sony for say 2 more films to keep the Bond series going.
Hopefully the creditors(one of them) will put pressure on and not keep giving extentions on the debt, so it is sorted out one way or the others. And The CraigMeister can troll on for Bond 23 in 2013
Edited by BoogieBond, 06 July 2010 - 09:07 AM.
#861
Posted 06 July 2010 - 03:40 AM
Meanwhile, MGM to seek sixth debt extension amid pressure to sell off The Hobbit rights
#862
Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:40 AM
#863
Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:02 AM
The film never started official production at Pinewood so there was no crew to 'lay off'.When they say, they told the crew, its over - I don´t understand that, because I don´t think, they have been sitting in Pinewood waiting for things to happen. Any work has been stopped for months - and surely those people already found other projects or are they paid to just sit around waiting - tied to Bond?
Right, exactly what I wanted to point out. So, even the original source of the article is wrong...
#864
Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:49 AM
3...2...1...
They did a Bond edition of 3-2-1 back in 1984. It starred Don Estelle as 003 1/2.
One of the prizes was a television, a video recorder and a copy of Octopussy.
And that would have been in the days when videos were £20-50! Good old dusty!
#865
Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:40 AM
The film never started official production at Pinewood so there was no crew to 'lay off'.When they say, they told the crew, its over - I don´t understand that, because I don´t think, they have been sitting in Pinewood waiting for things to happen. Any work has been stopped for months - and surely those people already found other projects or are they paid to just sit around waiting - tied to Bond?
Right, exactly what I wanted to point out. So, even the original source of the article is wrong...
I don't think there was a "source" in that ranting fan-boy pretensions at being in the know.
#866
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:11 AM
EXACTLY! THANKS!craigisyoungbilbobaggins.comthe short, ugly, classless troll
#867
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:11 AM
Give them a few years to wipe the slate clean before Bond#7 takes over.
#868
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:28 AM
#869
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:35 AM
The other big question which persists is why anyone would buy the club, paying over the odds, at this point. We keep being told there are interested parties, but I’m a little unsure why any of them will show their hand at this time. Any negotiator or businessman worth their salt will see the club being squeezed from every angle, and as the club gets squeezed the value will drop. I was taught something a long time ago about negotiation, never be afraid of silence. If you’re negotiating you shouldn’t feel the need to fill silence with noise or show your hand too soon. I suspect that our potential bidders are doing just that. After the noise of Tom Hicks they are quietly sat back, arms folded… waiting.
Seems to me like the same is true of the people interested in MGM. Why buy up the library now when it will cost them a lot of money, when in a few months or another year they can have their pick of the lot for significantly cheaper? Of course, it very well could not be the case. Interested parties have already come forth in the past, haven't they? Or at least were alleged to have done.
Strange times. Strange times indeed.
#870
Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:37 AM
Just wait. It is certainly not "been there, done that" with Daniel Craig and James Bond just yet.Craig is history. Been there, done that. Some loved it. I didn't.
Give them a few years to wipe the slate clean before Bond#7 takes over.

