1025 replies to this topic

[MattofSteel]

Just wait. It is certainly not "been there, done that" with Daniel Craig and James Bond just yet.

Agreed. He's 4 years younger than Roger was when he started.

And, as it happens, the same age Pierce was.

And, as it also happens, just about universally acclaimed enough to be the obvious choice. (Cue the floodgates...)

[Quantumofsolace007]

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.

Just wait. It is certainly not "been there, done that" with Daniel Craig and James Bond just yet.

I'm Optimistic but even I'm getting to the point of Bond 23 with Daniel Craig is nothing more then a pipe dream.

Like you said Even if MGM was bought right now bond 23 could be at least another 2-3 years away. That said I don't see MGM ever being bought anytime soon.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I know very little about business and finance, but doesn't MGM pretty much have to declare bankruptcy at some point? I can't imagine anyone buying the company unless its debt is wiped out.

Given that they don't even have the means to release the films that they've already made, I can't see how they'll be capable of generating any income. All they have is a film library whose value is steadily declining.

Unless they manage to release a consecutive string of movies with the budgets of Paranormal Activity and the grosses of Avatar, they'll never be able to get out from underneath all that debt. So what's the point of all the debt extensions? Aren't they going to have to accept the fact that bankruptcy is their only option? Or am I wrong?

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 06 July 2010 - 01:36 PM.

[BoogieBond]

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.

Just wait. It is certainly not "been there, done that" with Daniel Craig and James Bond just yet.

I'm Optimistic but even I'm getting to the point of Bond 23 with Daniel Craig is nothing more then a pipe dream.

I know very little about this situation apart from "Their in crippling debt" or about Business and Finance.
Like you said Even if MGM was bought right now bond 23 could be at least another 2-3 years away. That said I don't see MGM ever being bought anytime soon.

I see a leaner meaner 45 year old Craig take Bond 23(about the same age Pierce was in for TWINEish)
I would imagine the situation will only get worse at MGM, the trouble is the financial creditors(of one is Sony) seem very powerful bunch and prepared to shell out 250 mill in debt interest to stretch this out. But they cannot do indefinitely, they would have to merge with Spyglass/summit or do something to raise some capital to get the loan for the budget for B23 and Hobbit. Thats probably going to be 500 mill for the lot. I imagine the synergy with Summit/Spyglass/Liongate might be interesting to them as their Twilight/Saw series only has so far to go, and a share in MGM profits(not debt) might make the long term future brighter for them.
They are not in administration ? or ceased trading, they brought out Hot Tub Time Machine last year. But I imagine with a company the size of MGM (what do they have 600 employees as at 2006) it would take awhile to dismantle. Hoping for a sales to Time Warner. That you would think would be the best result for Bond(Short term). But like Rufus I know little about business and finance and the situation looks a very complicated one.

Edited by BoogieBond, 06 July 2010 - 02:12 PM.

[col_007]

Indeed, I fear we may possibly be faced with a new Bond by the time they come to make this film. I was reading something last night and...well, hold on. Let me pull it up.

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.

Liverpool Football Club and MGM share a common theme there both in a deep hole

MGM's is of its own making though

Edited by col_007, 06 July 2010 - 02:00 PM.

[Binyamin]

Will somebody put MGM out of its misery yet? It's dead. Let it die.

How frustrating and arrogant of MGM execs to refuse the $1.5 billion bid from Time Warner. "Yes, we know we owe everybody under the sun millions of dollars. But we're worth more than that. We're MGM! More more more more. Give. My precioussss."

Blah. Sell The Hobbit, sell Bond, liquidate, and get on with life.

[Syndicate]

Because MGM own half the rights to the Bond frachise. Back when McClory made NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, he was able to do it because he owned the rights to SPECTRE. That's why it's essentially a re-telling of THUNDERBALL. But in the wake of the McClory case, I think you'll find EON tied everything up neatly to prevent just such a situation - a rival Bond franchise starting up - from happening again. With MGM owning half the rights to the franchise, their hands are tied. If EON made BOND 23 but changed all the names and said "It's really a Bond film" so that audiences knew it, there would be some obligation to MGM. In fact, MGM would have grounds to sue EON, and could well wrest away the portion of the rights EON control.

The fastest way for BOND 23 to go into production would be for MGM to either be bought out or sell the rights to Bond off, and they're probably not going to do either any time soon.

Don't think MGM well ever sell it. They want to keep their share, and the earnings it rakes in.

[Mike00spy]

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.

Just wait. It is certainly not "been there, done that" with Daniel Craig and James Bond just yet.

I'm Optimistic but even I'm getting to the point of Bond 23 with Daniel Craig is nothing more then a pipe dream.

Like you said Even if MGM was bought right now bond 23 could be at least another 2-3 years away. That said I don't see MGM ever being bought anytime soon.

I don't understand why it could still take 3 yrs to make the film if the MGM situation was resolved. Isn't the script already done and approved?

Edited by Mike00spy, 06 July 2010 - 03:39 PM.

[Harry Fawkes]

The longer the wait, the better it'll be! Goldeneye anyone?

[Zorin Industries]

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.

Just wait. It is certainly not "been there, done that" with Daniel Craig and James Bond just yet.

I'm Optimistic but even I'm getting to the point of Bond 23 with Daniel Craig is nothing more then a pipe dream.

Like you said Even if MGM was bought right now bond 23 could be at least another 2-3 years away. That said I don't see MGM ever being bought anytime soon.

I don't understand why it could still take 3 yrs to make the film if the MGM situation was resolved. Isn't the script already done and approved?

Whilst that suggested timeline is a bit suspect, the legal machinations for the Bond camp are complicated whenever or whoever takes/replaces MGM. So it may add more time once the MGM 'sale'/euthanasia officially happens.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

The legal entanglement of this situation is so enormous that the only way a Bond film will get made for 2012 is that Sony Pictures is allowed to make one more under their banner. Otherwise, the so-called Harry Saltzman/Technicolor blunder of 1974/75 has reached across four decades and forced the most successful movie series in history to a definite halt that will take years to recover. When I say years, I mean this can take up to 10 years to iron out. There is an army of lawyers and bankers behind this and every 'i' needs to be dotted and every 't' crossed. We are talking about billions of dollars and the new owners will want every cent counted. This includes residuals, rentals - past and present, investors - past and present. Working out new agreements with the estates of dead artists, etc. The list is endless and nothing will advance until the accountants have done their research and concluded everything. Of course, if there is anything that was done incorrectly many years before, the accountants have to go back and correct that.

Bottom line: This is a huge mess and Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson most likely have moved on to other projects while this works itself out for the next decade. Sorry folks, unless Sony gets a free pass, Craig is just a twosome Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

Now that really would be shocking. 10 more years? Heck, I´m not getting younger!

[TheREAL008]

Sony should just buy the rights to the film franchise and be done with it. I love MGM and I truly hate to say it, but they're finished. If MGM continue to withhold for a last minute rescue then it might truly be the end of Bond on film completely and to me...that sadly is seeming to be the case.

[DamnCoffee]

Sony should just buy the rights to the film franchise and be done with it. I love MGM and I truly hate to say it, but they're finished.

+1.

[blueman]

The legal entanglement of this situation is so enormous that the only way a Bond film will get made for 2012 is that Sony Pictures is allowed to make one more under their banner. Otherwise, the so-called Harry Saltzman/Technicolor blunder of 1974/75 has reached across four decades and forced the most successful movie series in history to a definite halt that will take years to recover. When I say years, I mean this can take up to 10 years to iron out. There is an army of lawyers and bankers behind this and every 'i' needs to be dotted and every 't' crossed. We are talking about billions of dollars and the new owners will want every cent counted. This includes residuals, rentals - past and present, investors - past and present. Working out new agreements with the estates of dead artists, etc. The list is endless and nothing will advance until the accountants have done their research and concluded everything. Of course, if there is anything that was done incorrectly many years before, the accountants have to go back and correct that.

Bottom line: This is a huge mess and Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson most likely have moved on to other projects while this works itself out for the next decade. Sorry folks, unless Sony gets a free pass, Craig is just a twosome Bond.

This all makes sense except: who pays all those accountants and lawyers for ten years' worth of labor? Just add their fees to the pile? But why would any smart moneyperson do that when it's as tangled up a mess as it is? The stock is dropping, not rising, not sure they'd want to hitch their wagon to the MGM debacle, not when other good-paying jobs are out there for them.

I'm guessing all those dotted i's and crossed t's are undotted/uncrossed at this late date for the same reason, there's just no money in it for the dotters and crossers, cuz there's no one to pay them.

Still think the best solution for all involved is to cut their losses - everybody - and start making product again. Gotta put something on the screen to get butts in seats, new money from a new Bond would go a long ways towards healing old money wounds IMO. Then again it's not my mess/money, they want to party on for ten years dotting and crossing I guess they'll do just that (for free? a share of future profits? really? isn't that what a lot of foolish investors said a few years ago, and a few years before that, and...).

One big deal, blank slate it, make movies.

[Zorin Industries]

The legal entanglement of this situation is so enormous that the only way a Bond film will get made for 2012 is that Sony Pictures is allowed to make one more under their banner. Otherwise, the so-called Harry Saltzman/Technicolor blunder of 1974/75 has reached across four decades and forced the most successful movie series in history to a definite halt that will take years to recover. When I say years, I mean this can take up to 10 years to iron out. There is an army of lawyers and bankers behind this and every 'i' needs to be dotted and every 't' crossed. We are talking about billions of dollars and the new owners will want every cent counted. This includes residuals, rentals - past and present, investors - past and present. Working out new agreements with the estates of dead artists, etc. The list is endless and nothing will advance until the accountants have done their research and concluded everything. Of course, if there is anything that was done incorrectly many years before, the accountants have to go back and correct that.

Bottom line: This is a huge mess and Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson most likely have moved on to other projects while this works itself out for the next decade. Sorry folks, unless Sony gets a free pass, Craig is just a twosome Bond.

Whilst you are right about the enormity of the franchise's legalities, I do not quite agree with some of your timeline predictions here.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

This all makes sense except: who pays all those accountants and lawyers for ten years' worth of labor?

The company that buys them out at 5 cents on the dollar. Try to understand it will be nearly 10 years when the next film comes out. It will take up to that time to sort out the legal mess.

Bankruptcy may be the final word on MGM, but their library will end up being in someone's hands. Most likely the library will be broken up and sold to numerous buyers but you still need the legal team and the accountants to figure it out. If numerous buyers come in, then there will be numourous lawyers and accountants trying to work with every other legal team and accountants. Good luck.

I'm 50 years old now and I'm guessing I will be 60 by the time a new Bond hits the theaters. It was a great series for the duration of my life, but all good things must come to an end.

[Loomis]

It was a great series for the duration of my life, but all good things must come to an end.

Couldn't agree more, Doctor.

Let it die.

[DamnCoffee]

It was a great series for the duration of my life, but all good things must come to an end.

Couldn't agree more, Doctor.

Let it die.

...

[blueman]

This all makes sense except: who pays all those accountants and lawyers for ten years' worth of labor?

The company that buys them out at 5 cents on the dollar. Try to understand it will be nearly 10 years when the next film comes out. It will take up to that time to sort out the legal mess.

Bankruptcy may be the final word on MGM, but their library will end up being in someone's hands. Most likely the library will be broken up and sold to numerous buyers but you still need the legal team and the accountants to figure it out. If numerous buyers come in, then there will be numourous lawyers and accountants trying to work with every other legal team and accountants. Good luck.

I'm 50 years old now and I'm guessing I will be 60 by the time a new Bond hits the theaters. It was a great series for the duration of my life, but all good things must come to an end.

Why would the new buyers want to pay for 10 years' worth of number-checking? They won't make any money doing that, pretty sure that's why the whole bidding war fell on its face.

Someone (or multiple someones) will pre-arrange a big fat buy-out, and move forward with product. Waiting 10 years to sort out the financial and legal aspects of MGM's mess doesn't make anybody money (except the accountants and lawyers, but to the new buyers that's money out the window after an elephant's worth has already gone thud).

The new buyers will want to expedite new product, the catalogue peaked years ago, it still brings in some revenue but it's new movies (like Bond) that the new buyers will want most.

[Harry Fawkes]

The legal entanglement of this situation is so enormous that the only way a Bond film will get made for 2012 is that Sony Pictures is allowed to make one more under their banner. Otherwise, the so-called Harry Saltzman/Technicolor blunder of 1974/75 has reached across four decades and forced the most successful movie series in history to a definite halt that will take years to recover. When I say years, I mean this can take up to 10 years to iron out. There is an army of lawyers and bankers behind this and every 'i' needs to be dotted and every 't' crossed. We are talking about billions of dollars and the new owners will want every cent counted. This includes residuals, rentals - past and present, investors - past and present. Working out new agreements with the estates of dead artists, etc. The list is endless and nothing will advance until the accountants have done their research and concluded everything. Of course, if there is anything that was done incorrectly many years before, the accountants have to go back and correct that.

Bottom line: This is a huge mess and Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson most likely have moved on to other projects while this works itself out for the next decade. Sorry folks, unless Sony gets a free pass, Craig is just a twosome Bond.

10 years? That's a pity. rather great pity. The way things are going on the home-run I might not even last ing five!

Ah, well, as the great Sean once said: Cest la vie!

Mind you it was so good while it lasted. Oh and by the by, stay out of the ing sun!

[byline]

10 years? That's a pity. rather great pity. The way things are going on the home-run I might not even last ing five!

Ah, well, as the great Sean once said: Cest la vie!

Mind you it was so good while it lasted. Oh and by the by, stay out of the ing sun!

Sounds like you're dealing with the same skin-related worry that I am. At this point, for me, it's just a concern. Sounds like it's more than that for you.

And . . . 10 years. God, the thought just pisses away my day.

[DamnCoffee]

10 years? Nonsense.

James Bond will be back soon.

[Zorin Industries]

This would be an appropriate time for some of us to look into public domain laws of written works for England, Canada, and the U.S. There are variations among the three. And there are conditions, I think, for EON to keep certain trademarks and copyrights active. Margaret Mitchell's Gone With The Wind goes into public domain soon, and I think Mickey Mouse may be going into public domain in another 20 or 30 years unless laws are changed. Interesting topic.

Isn't that why Paramount made Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO so they would not lose the rights and one of the star attractions on most Hollywood tours? (do people still visit a Bates Motel on those horrendous tours?!).

"GONE WITH THE WIND 2012!!"... starring Katy Perry as SCARLETT O'HARA and Jude Law as RHETT BUTLER with Matthew Goode as ASHLEY and GABOUREY SIDIBE as MAMMY.

[Colossus]

The longer the wait, the better it'll be! Goldeneye anyone?

Agreed!

[JimmyBond]

"GONE WITH THE WIND 2012!!"... starring Katy Perry as SCARLETT O'HARA and Jude Law as RHETT BUTLER with Matthew Goode as ASHLEY and GABOUREY SIDIBE as MAMMY.

I would go see that movie. I would see anything that Katy Perry is in!

[MattofSteel]

I don't think I've been this depressed over Bond since I became a fan.

A new film is always just...a given. An old friend that pops in every few years to cheer you up. And we were on such a high with CR. Perfect film, perfect Bond, perfect time. And now, just a handful of years later, to go through this?

I have to say, my 20s have failed to impress. Nothing but heaps of disillusionment toward the world on the back of very little in the way of optimism. You spend your formative years dreaming and preparing, only to find out the world is a cruel, senseless place beset by enough human error to seem irredeemable.

I'll pass the violin if anyone else wants a turn.

[Jack Spang]

"Quite frankly, if we have to go through a 4-6 year film delay and all we get out of it is that MGM is still a co-owner of the Bond series, or that MGM still exists or holds some sort of leverage against EON, then it will have been a colossal waste of time as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how many more Craig 007 films get the green light.

Honestly, I'd rather wait 10 or 20 years and see the next new Bond film in 2018 or 2028 than have to deal with MGM ever again. The long wait time...the suffering that the fans are having to go through....and in aid of what? If our position hasn't advanced significantly when all of this is said and done...if EON's leverage hasn't increased after this is over....then it was all for nothing."

I agree. Anyway, with the exclusion of Casino Royale, it's not like we've had any Bond films that are anywhere near worth writing home about since LTK.

Edited by Jack Spang, 06 July 2010 - 11:53 PM.

[Mike00spy]

It was a great series for the duration of my life, but all good things must come to an end.

Couldn't agree more, Doctor.

Let it die.

Why are we on Bond websites if we want the series to end? <shakes head>

No way does this take 10 yrs. The next Bond will be out in 2012 or 2013.

[Captain Tightpants]

It was a great series for the duration of my life, but all good things must come to an end.

Couldn't agree more, Doctor.

Let it die.

If Bond is dead, then surely the series deserves a better death than the one MGM are apparently trying to give it.