007 could get Bollywood-style makeover

[katied]

Fox is trying to play it like well a fox. Sneaking in after everyone else has already bid and offering a noncommittal bit. If anything were ever agreed to their would be binding agreements.

It's their funeral if the next Bond film tanks, and bankrupts them, too, I suppose. *shrug*

[Mazer Rackham]

It can't. Hurt their bottom line, yes. Bankrupt them, no. They are a fricken billion dollar Corp, who wouldn't even spend 230m to make Avatar, so I doubt a bad Bond like LTK will even get their attention beyond pissing them off.

[katied]

It can't. Hurt their bottom line, yes. Bankrupt them, no. They are a fricken billion dollar Corp, who wouldn't even spend 230m to make Avatar, so I doubt a bad Bond like LTK will even get their attention beyond pissing them off.

I'd be pissed if I were Fox and I spent all that money on a franchise and it tanked.


But this this is a developing story, so who knows if it'll be Fox, or it'll be someone else, if they take a pass on it.

[Mazer Rackham]

I think it was this thread where someone (james? )had asked me about the legal implications of MGM's ownership of the Bond Franchise and what kind of problems a sale could create..

It is still very murky to me and nobody wants or likes to talk about it, but I found out that if MGM goes bankrupt the intellectual property rights to make James Bond sequels revert to another party. So they really own nothing, no wonder the Creditors have been so amenable!

[Omega]

Rights revert to who????? Can you elaborate on this

[Kristatos]

Rights revert to who????? Can you elaborate on this

A Mr. Arthur Scrote of 27 Acacia Avenue, Purley. He won them in a raffle.

[Mazer Rackham]

Rights revert to who????? Can you elaborate on this

A Mr. Arthur Scrote of 27 Acacia Avenue, Purley. He won them in a raffle.

And now time for something completely different....


It's not just Bond by going into bankruptcy they stand to lose many of intellectual rights they hold. Which is why foxy Fox is trying to play it sneaky by giving them a way to avoid bankruptcy and help restructure the debt. Fox didn't sign the nondisclosure until the 15th (the last day of the first round of bidding) then later submitted a nonbinding offer. MGM's investors are preparing to write of 85% of their investment. Even if MGM manages to somehow stay solvent and also is able to get more working capital it would be difficult for them to get out of debt,long term it would only be postponing the inevitable.

And no I do not know who the Bond rights would revert to. However I am sure pensioner Arthur Scrote of Purley will do a fine job.

[The Sweeney]

Sam Mendes is signed up as consultant for now (obviously because he can't be hired officially with the MGM fiasco still ongoing.)

Does this mean he WILL be the next director for Bond 23, once MGM is sorted out..??

[Kristatos]

And no I do not know who the Bond rights would revert to. However I am sure pensioner Arthur Scrote of Purley will do a fine job.

Are we talking about production or distribution rights here? Am I correct in thinking that MGM only had the latter, with EON having control of production? I'm almost afraid to ask this, as I probably won't understand the answer (I've never even been able to figure out the difference between EON and Danjaq), but you never know.

[Blowfeld]

What happened to the days when a director was hired and they made a movie not worrying about who owns what or what studio head to make happy?

[Mazer Rackham]

Eon is a production company only and doesn't own anything. Danjaq is the copyright owner.
UA/MGM has co-ownership with the Broccoli family since the mid-1970s. Danjaq/Eon largely retained creative control but studios can exercise influence from time to time. MGM maintains that it jointly owns the copyrights of all the Bond movies with Danjaq. I think CR may be the only exception, which was a Sony production.

A while back I heard that Cubby bought back UA's interest in Bond during a bad time for UA, but since then every studio has maintained they own half, so it most likely never happened.

What I find curious is that by going bankrupt MGM will lose the intellectual property rights to make future installments. That is a huge problem.
I know they are putting brave face on this right now, but everyone including Craig I believe are relegated to the fact a sequel may not happen.Not in Craig's time as Bond anyway.

Make no mistake Eon has done MGM a solid by maintaining production is under way but that has gone as far as it can go. MGM can and has put that best face on it and fought like hell to make their assets as valuable as possible. The problem none of their assets are as valuable as they were 5 years ago.

Talking with some of my mates there are two points we agree on: (remember this is just gossip mongering)

Bond 23 with Craig is a tossup, depends how long this mess takes to work out winch may be years more. It could be worked out quicker and smoother, most of us don't see it happening. MGM's floated June production for bond 23 was shot to hell by Craig.

Getting the rights to CR and rebooting seemed to energize Eon but that all is gone now, and the franchise is out of ideas. They could easily buy some ideas by going to the other books licensed by Fleming's estate, which would only cost about $200k, maybe a little more now.

My own opinion is the other projects Eon/the Broccoli's have on their plate will take priority pushing Bond 23 further back.

[The Sweeney]

I personally think someone will step in at the last hour to save this mess, and Bond 23 will be back on track as normal.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up.....it's just a gut feeling, a hunch. The Bond franchise right now is still an asset of sorts, it's certainly not a franchise studios don't want to be associated with (regardless of what you guys here think of Craig personally).
It has been around too long for something like this to grind it to a halt - especially given the success CR was only 4 years ago.

The franchise today is in a healthier state than it was in 89 after LTK, so I don't think we'll get another 6 year gap.

[Mazer Rackham]

Could do. Could do.

It's a tangled mess. Bond is one of the few things MGM has of value and the only one most of the studios are actually trying for. It is also the only thing keeping MGM alive at this point. Unless I've completely misread Hot tub Time Machine MGM is going to fight to keep it and that may cause problems. Fox's offer may have some appeal, or I should say offers like it. MGM losing intellectual rights in bankruptcy would have me betting the investors wouldn't go that way unless it is absolutely unavoidable, but a patch will not fix what is wrong with MGM and the investors have to ask themselves what is better a short term payout and cutting their losses or hoping MGM gets on its feet and can continue interest payments all the while their DVDs sales and vaults assets are losing value making a future sale less appealing.

2011 would still be quicker date than I'd expect. No doubt a new owner if they get one would want to push out moneymakers however there are still plenty of things to over come to get to that point and I see more problems getting there just because of the nature of the business. But there is still plenty left to play out.

[Blowfeld]

How likely is it that Warner Brothers could take over MGM? Out of some of the contenders to me they would be the best fit.
Could they just take over MGM like MGM took over UA? I do not care for Craig in the role but I don't want the franchise to go tits up because of this. I'd like the franchise to be healthy enough to get past this nonsenses and get back to making 007 movies once more.

Time Warner Fourth-Quarter Profit Exceeds Analysts’ Estimates
February 03, 2010, 06:35 AM EST

By Sarah Rabil

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Time Warner Inc., owner of the Warner Bros. film studio and the HBO cable channel, reported fourth- quarter profit that topped analysts’ estimates and increased its dividend and stock repurchase program.

Net income of $627 million, or 53 cents a share, compared with a loss of $16 billion, or $13.41, a year earlier, the New York-based company said today in a statement distributed by Business Wire. Excluding items such as costs to cut jobs at Time Inc., profit rose to 55 cents, beating the 52-cent average of analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Bewkes completed the spinoff of AOL Inc. in December, shedding the Internet unit that had been a drag on profit since the companies’ 2001 merger. Bewkes, 57, also trimmed jobs and costs at the magazine and film units to help counter a slump in advertising and DVD revenue.

Time Warner raised its quarterly dividend to 21.25 cents a share from 18.75 cents, and boosted its share buyback by $2 billion.

Investors have pressed for cash returns since the company received $9.25 billion last March from the spinoff of Time Warner Cable Inc.

Time Warner rose 46 cents to $28.51 yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares climbed 40 percent last year, compared with a 23 percent gain for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.

Warner Bros. was the top-grossing studio in the U.S. and Canada last year, pulling in $2.11 billion in box-office sales, according to Box Office Mojo. The studio released “The Blind Side” and “Sherlock Holmes” in the fourth quarter.

In an attempt to add to its film and TV library, Time Warner was among first-round bidders for the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. film studio, a person familiar with the matter said last month. MGM, maker of the “James Bond” movies, put itself up for sale in November as it struggles with $3.7 billion in debt.

In December, Time Inc. joined News Corp., Hearst Corp. and other publishers to form a joint venture to sell magazines and newspapers through a virtual store. The publications are facing an industrywide decline in advertising sales that was heightened by the U.S. recession.

(The company plans to hold a conference call at 10:30 a.m. New York time, available on {LIVE <GO>}.)


--Editors: Cécile Daurat, Celeste Perri

To contact the reporter on this story: Sarah Rabil in New York at +1-212-617-5992 or srabil@bloomberg.net

This story can be found at Businessweek.com

[Mazer Rackham]

Bond isn't in trouble it is one of the few real assets MGM has. A delay might get Craig out of the role the longer it drags on. From his own best interest to the self-interest of the franchise could make recasting advantageous. I don't think it will be another 6 year lull but it could easily stretch a year or more longer. Or in 6 months it all could be squared away.

I think Babs and Craig would like to make another one, Babs because she is obsessed with Craig, Craig so he doesn't leave on the Bomb that was Quark. But the franchise doesn't need him, sadly others involved will have figured it out before those two do.

[Dr. No]

WhaT Craig doesn't like his own movie????!?!?!?!? I can't believe that he was so proud of it. He even said it would be embarrassing to follow up the first with a bad second, when he said that He had seen it already so I don't think he is that upset with it.

[The Sweeney]

WhaT Craig doesn't like his own movie????!?!?!?!? I can't believe that he was so proud of it. He even said it would be embarrassing to follow up the first with a bad second, when he said that He had seen it already so I don't think he is that upset with it.

I think he was more upset with the harsh reviews QoS recieved, compared to CR.

[Kristatos]

WhaT Craig doesn't like his own movie????!?!?!?!? I can't believe that he was so proud of it. He even said it would be embarrassing to follow up the first with a bad second, when he said that He had seen it already so I don't think he is that upset with it.

Well, I can't imagine he'd be unprofessional enough to slag the movie off in public. What he thinks of it privately is anyone's guess.

[Dr. No]

what you both say makes sense. when CR came out he said we can do better so i thought he might be more critical in public.

[Mazer Rackham]

He is having nasty reaction to it after all the reviews and critics. He is thin skinned in this regard. He also feels a bit of a fool, he danced out there like a stringed puppet to tout/ sell it and it was an industrial strength lemon. By the way part of the problem the studios had/have with him is he sucks at PR.

But what you all should consider is that for all the hoopla Quark (AKA QOS) only sold approximately 2m more tickets than DAD. Which in the current market infrastructure available to the Bond series this is an amazing backslide. I know it is hard to make sense of this and it's even harder to illustrate this but I'm working on it