26

Re: Bond 25 distributor

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.

27

Re: Bond 25 distributor

A Sony rep, while declining to comment specifically on negotiations, made it clear that they'd naturally like to continue distributing Bond  ajb007/bond

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

28

Re: Bond 25 distributor

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/2016/0 … -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.

29

Re: Bond 25 distributor

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.

30

Re: Bond 25 distributor

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.

Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.

31

Re: Bond 25 distributor

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/2016/0 … -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 ajb007/wink  I'm not buying the forced narrative that MGM is desperate, re: the Bond franchise.

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

32

Re: Bond 25 distributor

It's all a big negotiating game anyway. Each side trying to get the upper hand. The potential distributors: "We can't possibly make that type of chance without a guarantee that old Danny Boy will be in the tux; oh and by the way could you try to find a less expensive tux". MGM: "You know bloody well that a Bond film will make tons of cash whether Danny Boy is back or Babs casts Pee Wee Bloody Herman". ajb007/martini

33

Re: Bond 25 distributor

HowardB wrote:

It's all a big negotiating game anyway. Each side trying to get the upper hand. The potential distributors: "We can't possibly make that type of chance without a guarantee that old Danny Boy will be in the tux; oh and by the way could you try to find a less expensive tux". MGM: "You know bloody well that a Bond film will make tons of cash whether Danny Boy is back or Babs casts Pee Wee Bloody Herman". ajb007/martini

Well, exactly. Everyone who talks to MGM will obviously try to get the best deal they can, pointedly ignoring the elephant in the room that is Eon's record of remarkable successes...until someone on MGM's team respectfully reminds them  ajb007/cool  #25 is still early in the development pipeline, with a new actor cast (  ajb007/wink  ), a script being written based upon a treatment (probably) already in existence...but they have the luxury of time, and no pressing need to make a decision rashly.

The idea that MGM is walking down the street, hat in hand---being rejected at every front door, like a downtrodden encyclopedia salesman trying unsuccessfully to unload his wares---strikes me as highly unlikely. It's far more probable that they have a number of potential suitors waiting in their foyer, and are talking to each one privately, in turn, hearing what they have to say and then politely replying: "Thank you for your time. We'll get back to you." They will weigh each offer carefully, and then ultimately make a decision.

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

34

Re: Bond 25 distributor

Loeffelholz wrote:
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/2016/0 … -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 ajb007/wink  I'm not buying the forced narrative that MGM is desperate, re: the Bond franchise.

I read the article.

Thanks.

35

Re: Bond 25 distributor

Loeffelholz wrote:

The idea that MGM is walking down the street, hat in hand---being rejected at every front door, like a downtrodden encyclopedia salesman trying unsuccessfully to unload his wares---strikes me as highly unlikely.

Apple cores! Freshly picked from the garbage of the rich! Apple cores! Apple cores!  ajb007/lol

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

36

Re: Bond 25 distributor

Loeffelholz wrote:
Matt S wrote:

Have any Bond films lost money?

No - even the 'bombs' returned a profit.

  Thunderball, CR-67, YOLT, AVTAK, TND? - They all had a lot of bombs!  ajb007/biggrin

This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?

37

Re: Bond 25 distributor

DisneyBuysJamesBind wrote:

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/ … -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.

Is there really a thread here about speculation on who will distribute the next Bond film? It's not necessarily an enticing subject, nor will it, in any way, influence the producers.

Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery

38

Re: Bond 25 distributor

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Is there really a thread here about speculation on who will distribute the next Bond film? It's not necessarily an enticing subject, nor will it, in any way, influence the producers.

ajb007/wink This will virtually resolve itself.

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

39

Re: Bond 25 distributor

Whether MGM distributes the next Bond film themselves or partners with another studio more than likely will have much more impact upon MGM and its' profit margin or debt service than what ends up on the screen. EON still makes the Bond films and will choose Craig's successor whether it is for Bond 25 or further on down the road. Whether the budget for Bond 25 is 150 million or 250 million should not determine whether we get a great, mediocre, or poor film. There are lots of ways to cut costs without compromising what ends up on the screen: less globetrotting by faking locations (if done right virtually undetectable); better writing and storytelling; take a break from Bond having a big car chase in the latest supercar from Aston Martin (if they must have a car chase it might be more interesting to see Bond whipping around in an everyman type ride); less emphasis on big over the top stunts but more gun fights, suspenseful breaking and entering, clever assassinations and great hand to hand fights (what a concept, a well written, suspenseful, action packed violent espionage thriller) ;  and last but not least, if there is a new actor as Bond they ain't gonna pay him anything close to what they would have to pay Craig.

40

Re: Bond 25 distributor

MGM selects its studio partner for Bond 25: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s deal with Sony Pictures to distribute 007 movies is expiring. A lot of people expect the decision whether to continue with Sony or to go with another studio to occur early in the year.

Michael G. Wilson, co-boss of Eon Productions, said during an appearance this year, that he expected the decision in “probably in January, February.”

To be fair, Wilson didn't say January or February of which year.

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/1 … r-in-2016/

41

Re: Bond 25 distributor

As a reward, you might interest at the Change.org petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/mgm-holdings-i … m=copylink

If i'm be happy, i'll continue to stay at ABJ007  ajb007/biggrin

42

Re: Bond 25 distributor

As per www.mi6-hq.com contract with 20th Century Fox has been renewed for video.

43

Re: Bond 25 distributor

superado wrote:

"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.

This.

"Bond, James Bond"