Bond 25 distributor

DisneyBuysJamesBind

Ahead of the supposedly Bond 25 announcement, which new distributor of James Bond will be due to Sony expires the contact last year.

I've had few distributors in mind (with the exception of Universal Pictures):

Walt Disney Pictures - It brought Marvel and Lucasfilm and best known for being the most powerful brand, it could be the new home of the British film series since 2012. It may be also a front-runner for the distribution rights shortly.

Warner Brothers Pictures - It was originally reported by Variety in on 2 June 2015 but, due to disappointed box office shares of 'Batman Vs Superman', it may be dropped from the James Bond bid. See my blog for the information: https://ukidents.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/james-bond-distribution-rights-update-has-warner-bros-drop-the-bond-bid/

Paramount Pictures - It has withdrawn the James Bond bid once, dated from April 2011, but it could ruled out twice.

20th Century Fox - It has been known for the home video rights to the MGM's films until sometime in 2016, and it won't have the franchise because it was originally planned in October 2009 when MGM originally planned to sell the Bond franchise with the help of the blog Film School Rejects.

It would be good also that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer may get a distribution deal with The Walt Disney Studios. Brace yourselves guys.

Jag

Does it really matter to us, fans and viewers, who the distributor is? Or is it only something of interest to the producers? I would, naturally, prefer it not to be 20th Century Fox, but that's about it. Whoever's the best should get the job.

superado

"Whoever's the best" is key. Several times whichever was the studio partnered with EON unreasonably tightebned the budget to the detriment of the production and occasionally too controlling. But it seems that Sony-Columbia has been strategically generous with the recent installments. The key IMO is vision, which UA certainly had plenty of in the very beginning, just as Sony did with the reboot.

MilleniumForce

Honestly, when you look at some of he behind the scenes meddling behind other film franchises, Sony and Foc are the last place I would want Bond to be.

A lot of people don't like the idea of Disney, but I don't know; they're clearly not afraid to make darker films (such as some of the MCU films). I imagine if Disney was in charge of Bond, we'd get movies like Connery's and Moore's; full of gadgets, giant sets and exciting villains.

Warner Bros aren't bad either, but if it did go to them, I'd just hope the higher ups don't have as much control over Blnd as they do for DC movies.

superado

An averted mess was the Jinx solo movie, considering that there was Halle Berry's Catwoman movie that of course was a DC-Warner property.

Mr Martini

This article popped up on Forbes today. If you have an ad blocker turned on, you'll have to turn it off:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/06/10/how-james-bond-could-head-to-warner-bros-with-christopher-nolan-in-drivers-seat/#6c7cb5d72557

Loeffelholz

Mr Martini wrote:

This article popped up on Forbes today. If you have an ad blocker turned on, you'll have to turn it off:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/06/10/how-james-bond-could-head-to-warner-bros-with-christopher-nolan-in-drivers-seat/#6c7cb5d72557

Very interesting; thanks! -{ I've read another article discussing MGM's getting financially stronger, nearly to the point that they could distribute Bond in-house, but are more likely to focus on new acquisitions instead, and secure a distribution deal with someone. Will try to find it and post.

Loeffelholz

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mgm-watch-007s-studio-seen-getting-stronger/

superado

Loeffelholz wrote:

Mr Martini wrote:

This article popped up on Forbes today. If you have an ad blocker turned on, you'll have to turn it off:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/06/10/how-james-bond-could-head-to-warner-bros-with-christopher-nolan-in-drivers-seat/#6c7cb5d72557

Very interesting; thanks! -{ I've read another article discussing MGM's getting financially stronger, nearly to the point that they could distribute Bond in-house, but are more likely to focus on new acquisitions instead, and secure a distribution deal with someone. Will try to find it and post.

I've been confused with the need for new studio "takers" with MGM being right there all along. I guess that the new complexities in the film industry (compared to the simpler Hollywood studio system of the early 20th Century) is such a marvel and a mess to reckon with, which I suppose is the result of business globalization and the evolution of media. But to keep things simple in my mind, Production+Distribution=happy Bond fans.

P.S., thanks Mr. Martini for the article link.

HowardB

I don't know what it is when it comes to Forbes and Bond. The article seemed to be on point when it came to the money issues and things of that ilk. But they go full metal jacket moron by basically saying if Warners becomes the distributor then Chris Nolan will take over the artistic end of the franchise (with 26 directed by George Miller and of course Tom Hardy as Bond). Now that may not be a bad thing to some but they completely ignore the reality that half of Bond belongs to EON, who actually make the films. I don't think Barbara will just step aside and let Warners or any other studio just roll in and call all the shots. Unfortunately another Bond article by a knob who doesn't know the franchise and is too lazy to do their research.

HalfMonk HalfHitman

+1 -{

Gala Brand

I read on another site that MGM is considering distributing Bond 25 themselves.

I take this to mean that they can't find a distributor, at least not one who will take the percentage MGM is offering. This gets back to the problem of trying to find a distributor when you don't have a big name director or actor.

This is bad news because MGM doesn't have the dough to finance Bond 25 on its own. It will have to borrow the money which will cause it to push for a quick release to keep the interest payments as low as possible. Generally, bad things happen when a Bond movie is pushed through too quickly.

Right now, MGM and EON appear clueless.

zaphod99

Gala Brand wrote:

I read on another site that MGM is considering distributing Bond 25 themselves.

I take this to mean that they can't find a distributor, at least not one who will take the percentage MGM is offering. This gets back to the problem of trying to find a distributor when you don't have a big name director or actor.

This is bad news because MGM doesn't have the dough to finance Bond 25 on its own. It will have to borrow the money which will cause it to push for a quick release to keep the interest payments as low as possible. Generally, bad things happen when a Bond movie is pushed through too quickly.

Right now, MGM and EON appear clueless.

If your reading is correct (and it may well be) reduced timescales and tight budget may neccessarilly result in a poor film. Spectre cost a fortune and Eon had all the time in the world. I suspect that all but its most ardent admirers would rate it as middle ranking. Personally I'm in no rush to see another poorly executed collapsing building or another Helicopter or Plane sequence for quite some time...

HowardB

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions regarding the disributor issue. MGM doesn't call all the shots as EON still owns half of Bond and is the creative force and won't be forced into a position to rush out a shoddy product. If MGM is considering distributing Bond themselves it's probably not for a lack of suitors but based upon their accountants careful crunching of numbers based upon a projected budget along with distribution costs, getting favorable financing which would all culminate in more profit for MGM. Zaphod99 makes a great point about budgets and time: simply lots of time and money doesn't always translate to a better film. In many cases those "limitations" force film makers to be more creative and be more original. As I recall there were concerns from some on the AJB when it appeared that there were some cost cutting measures taken during the filming of Skyfall (using alternate locations, etc) and look how that turned out.

Gala Brand

But it's a question of economics, sadly.

Casino Royale cost $150 million ten years ago. It had a relatively little known star, a relatively little known female lead, and a journeyman director (who made the film of his life), and no expensive stunts.

It's hard to see even a really cheap Bond film being less than $200 million. Add $75 million minimum for marketing and advertising and you're looking at needing top line revenues of circa $600 million to break even. Evidently there aren't any distributors willing to put up a minimum of $150 million for 8-10% of the net on a "cheap" Bond film with a little known actor and a journeyman director. I can't say I blame them.

HowardB

I guess the moral of the story is: pick the right actor to play Bond and make a really good Bond film. People will come. -{

Miles Messervy

Hiddleston is close to A-list status. I'm not sure the actor is the deterrent. I think it's the fact that they went way over budget on SPECTRE and produced a rubbish film. I think it would be a blessing if EON were forced to work with a more limited budget. Perhaps then they would focus on the story rather than the spectacle.

Loeffelholz

MGM will have no trouble partnering with a distributor. James Bond is a proven good bet. That said, it wouldn't be a bad thing to tell a good story on a more disciplined budget.

Gala Brand

Miles Messervy wrote:

Hiddleston is close to A-list status. I'm not sure the actor is the deterrent. I think it's the fact that they went way over budget on SPECTRE and produced a rubbish film. I think it would be a blessing if EON were forced to work with a more limited budget. Perhaps then they would focus on the story rather than the spectacle.

If Spectre had been a better film and made more money, MGM wouldn't have as hard a time finding a distributor.

I think the plan was to throw so much money at Craig that he couldn't refuse and with Craig on board, finding a distributor wouldn't be a problem. Turned out Craig couldn't be bought.

Loeffelholz

My understanding is that MGM's considering distributing in-house has more to do with their improved financial health than with actual difficulties finding a partner.

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mgm-watch-007s-studio-seen-getting-stronger/

HowardB

Gala Brand wrote:

Miles Messervy wrote:

Hiddleston is close to A-list status. I'm not sure the actor is the deterrent. I think it's the fact that they went way over budget on SPECTRE and produced a rubbish film. I think it would be a blessing if EON were forced to work with a more limited budget. Perhaps then they would focus on the story rather than the spectacle.

If Spectre had been a better film and made more money, MGM wouldn't have as hard a time finding a distributor.

I think the plan was to throw so much money at Craig that he couldn't refuse and with Craig on board, finding a distributor wouldn't be a problem. Turned out Craig couldn't be bought.

Again, I just don't believe MGM can't find a distributor. How good or bad a film SPECTRE was is totally subjective. The reality is while SPECTRE didn't make as much as Skyfall, it still was a huge success at the box office. James Bond films are a license to print money, Craig or no Craig. That all being said, common sense would be to make damn sure that if the next Bond film has a new Bond actor that it's a very good film, a poor first film for a new Bond actor could really set things back. At this point MGM may be willing to take on more of a financial gamble for a larger profit. As Loeffelholz pointed out in his post MGM's improved financial health probably puts them in a much better position to procure the funding themselves for distribution rather than having to take on another partner.

Sir Miles

Loeffelholz wrote:

My understanding is that MGM's considering distributing in-house has more to do with their improved financial health than with actual difficulties finding a partner.

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mgm-watch-007s-studio-seen-getting-stronger/

But why spoil a good story with facts ? )

Loeffelholz

Sir Miles wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

My understanding is that MGM's considering distributing in-house has more to do with their improved financial health than with actual difficulties finding a partner.

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mgm-watch-007s-studio-seen-getting-stronger/

But why spoil a good story with facts ? )

) Right? {[]

Matt S

Have any Bond films lost money?

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

Have any Bond films lost money?

No - even the 'bombs' returned a profit.

Matt S

Loeffelholz wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Have any Bond films lost money?

No - even the 'bombs' returned a profit.

I'd like to think after 24 movies they've proven themselves.

Loeffelholz

A Sony rep, while declining to comment specifically on negotiations, made it clear that they'd naturally like to continue distributing Bond :007)

Gala Brand

Loeffelholz wrote:

My understanding is that MGM's considering distributing in-house has more to do with their improved financial health than with actual difficulties finding a partner.

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mgm-watch-007s-studio-seen-getting-stronger/

MGM's deal with Sony was that Sony would pay 50% of the costs in exchange for 10% of the profit (1/5 of MGM's 1/2).

It makes no sense for MGM to take on that other 50% of the cost in exchange for only 10% of the profit.

If MGM could do the same deal they had with Sony with another distributor they would. In a heartbeat.

The talk, "we'll just do it ourselves" is out of desperation.

Miles Messervy

The trouble is they're probably trying to negotiate that same deal again and the studios aren't biting. Bond is about as close to a sure thing as there is, so I'm pretty sure this will be resolved in due time.

zaphod99

Miles Messervy wrote:

The trouble is they're probably trying to negotiate that same deal again and the studios aren't biting. Bond is about as close to a sure thing as there is, so I'm pretty sure this will be resolved in due time.

Whatever you think of them Eon have proved capable of playing the long game. With no script no star and no rush they can afford to play hardball. As has already adroitly Ben pointed out, even the lesser performing entries have turned a profit.

Loeffelholz

Gala Brand wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

My understanding is that MGM's considering distributing in-house has more to do with their improved financial health than with actual difficulties finding a partner.

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/mgm-watch-007s-studio-seen-getting-stronger/

MGM's deal with Sony was that Sony would pay 50% of the costs in exchange for 10% of the profit (1/5 of MGM's 1/2).

It makes no sense for MGM to take on that other 50% of the cost in exchange for only 10% of the profit.

If MGM could do the same deal they had with Sony with another distributor they would. In a heartbeat.

The talk, "we'll just do it ourselves" is out of desperation.

Actually, if you read the article I link, the notion that they might do it themselves comes from industry rivals, not MGM themselves I'm not buying the forced narrative that MGM is desperate, re: the Bond franchise.