Sony Signs Distribution Deal with MGM that Includes Bond

[Alessandra]

Sony Signs Distribution Deal with MGM that Includes Bond

Postby Alessandra » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:36 pm
AAANND FINALLY one step ahead. Distribution agreement signed. With whom? Sony I am laughing because the war will be SO on with EON. Sony and MGM on one side, EON on the other. Sony people do NOT like Babs at all, and they royally screwed over both MGM and EON last time around. Also, pretty sure given what Mazer and I explained about the deal, that this means EON will be forced to produce those movies that were in the Sony agreement back then.

NikkiFinke

TOLDJA! MGM Makes Distribution Deal With Sony Pictures That Includes James Bond http://dlvr.it/NQC8Y

And once again, Nikki Finke was spot-on before, and has it before anyone else.

[English Agent]

Sony Signs Distribution Deal with MGM that Includes Bond

Postby Alessandra » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:36 pm
AAANND FINALLY one step ahead. Distribution agreement signed. With whom? Sony I am laughing because the war will be SO on with EON. Sony and MGM on one side, EON on the other. Sony people do NOT like Babs at all, and they royally screwed over both MGM and EON last time around. Also, pretty sure given what Mazer and I explained about the deal, that this means EON will be forced to produce those movies that were in the Sony agreement back then.

NikkiFinke

TOLDJA! MGM Makes Distribution Deal With Sony Pictures That Includes James Bond http://dlvr.it/NQC8Y

And once again, Nikki Finke was spot-on before, and has it before anyone else.

Sony and EON dont get on?..............i always read reports that say Babs and Sony get on like bosom pals!

EA

[Alessandra]

Sony Signs Distribution Deal with MGM that Includes Bond

Postby Alessandra » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:36 pm
AAANND FINALLY one step ahead. Distribution agreement signed. With whom? Sony I am laughing because the war will be SO on with EON. Sony and MGM on one side, EON on the other. Sony people do NOT like Babs at all, and they royally screwed over both MGM and EON last time around. Also, pretty sure given what Mazer and I explained about the deal, that this means EON will be forced to produce those movies that were in the Sony agreement back then.

NikkiFinke

TOLDJA! MGM Makes Distribution Deal With Sony Pictures That Includes James Bond http://dlvr.it/NQC8Y

And once again, Nikki Finke was spot-on before, and has it before anyone else.

Sony and EON dont get on?..............i always read reports that say Babs and Sony get on like bosom pals!

EA

Complete and utter BS. They don't get on well at all, in fact the last time around Sony royally screwed both Eon and MGM over. Badly. This time though, Sony is on MGM's side. So it should get veeewy interesting!

[English Agent]

Postby English Agent » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:37 am
So the reports that EON and Amy Pascal of Sony, having a good working relationship are wrong.

I was just stating what i read in the media.

EA

[Mazer Rackham]

Postby English Agent » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:37 am
So the reports that EON and Amy Pascal of Sony, having a good working relationship are wrong.

I was just stating what i read in the media.

EA

Since it is you asking EA.

The Pascal relationship was always overblown but it is great PR. I do think Babs liked the money and attention Sony lavished on her, however Pascal did not want her boy Craig and was one of those who forced a 24 hour screen test. She was also talking to Brozza at the 11th hour about coming back. All water under the bridge as it were. The real rub is in 2009 when EON was supposed to collect a close to $300m for CR and QOS (aka Quark) from Sony and they came away with nothing. Well... Almost nothing. Remember the hoopla about Quark being such a smash hit that Sony and Eon/Babs were continuing their partnership with 2 non-Bond related movies? One was a Bang-Bang remake and the other I forget, coincidentally the exact amount for EON to produce both movies was $300m. A very bitter point (and pill to swallow) that came down to too much money being spent on Quark. It is documented Sony spent was at least $400m on production and advertising. Quark lost money and generous spendthrift Sony became misers over night once their partnership on the two movies completed.

Very long story short, EON still owes Sony 2 movies, movies they apparently never intended to make, with this deal Sony is in position to force a resolution. Perhaps one EON is not eager to comply with.

Today's new is good because once the financing is completed and the money is in the bank they can actually sign the director and hire a cast. However they also have to submit a script and the cast has to be approved. I doubt MGM will raise a fuss, although maybe they should. Surely a better suited director can be found.

[Mazer Rackham]

Postby Mazer Rackham » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:30 pm
Interesting part of this is Sony is only a 50% partner on Bond 23 & 24, meaning MGM still has to find half of the money to make Bond 23 and I doubt if Sony is covering the P&A. MGM is keeping tv and home video rights which were the real winners for them in the past, read pre-Craig.

Also this deal seems to leave MGM options open on several fronts but that not worth going in to right now. We are here to talk about Bond right?

I wonder if MGM is able to shift enough capital around to do Bond properly. They have some relief with Sony co-financing some of their other projects.... One thing is for certain Bond 23 out of necessity is going to have a small budget, what this will entail we have to wait to see.

[English Agent]

Interesting part of this is Sony is only a 50% partner on Bond 23 & 24, meaning MGM still has to find half of the money to make Bond 23 and I doubt if Sony is covering the P&A. MGM is keeping tv and home video rights which were the real winners for them in the past, read pre-Craig.

Also this deal seems to leave MGM options open on several fronts but that not worth going in to right now. We are here to talk about Bond right?

I wonder if MGM is able to shift enough capital around to do Bond properly. They have some relief with Sony co-financing some of their other projects.... One thing is for certain Bond 23 out of necessity is going to have a small budget, what this will entail we have to wait to see.

Thanks for the explanations.

It would be interesting to sit in and hear the discussions beteween EON and the studios about the Bond films!

Yes, i have no doubt that Bond 23 will have a smaller budget than QOS, and that maybe no bad thing, as it will hopefully get the producers to concentrate on the script more, and not to blow most of the money on action set pieces.

I think that after the generally good reception that CR received........the producers got over confident with QOS, and splashed out a ridiculous amount of money on a film, that i suppose they thought would outdo CR, but didnt.........mainly down to poor planning, and hiring of a misfit of talent to make the film.

EA

[Bond77]

Postby Bond77 » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:01 pm

Mazer Rackham wrote:In

teresting part of this is Sony is only a 50% partner on Bond 23 & 24, meaning MGM still has to find half of the money to make Bond 23 and I doubt if Sony is covering the P&A. MGM is keeping tv and home video rights which were the real winners for them in the past, read pre-Craig.

Why did Sony only agree to 50%? Are they hedging their bets?

Mazer Rackham wrote:

Very long story short, EON still owes Sony 2 movies, movies they apparently never intended to make, with this deal Sony is in position to force a resolution. Perhaps one EON is not eager to comply with.

EON seems to not have gotten that great of a deal. EON must of had to make this deal though because time is ticking away, and their franchise is in a lurch. EON's bargaining chips going into this deal with Sony and MGM were Daniel Craig and Quantum of Solace. Might as well have no chips at all.

Mazer Rackham wrote:

Today's new is good because once the financing is completed and the money is in the bank they can actually sign the director and hire a cast. However they also have to submit a script and the cast has to be approved. I doubt MGM will raise a fuss, although maybe they should. Surely a better suited director can be found.

Good points, and there is still an issue with Daniel Craig's schedule, right? So many things not in place yet, and with so little time. My goodness.

Mazer Rackham wrote:

I wonder if MGM is able to shift enough capital around to do Bond properly. They have some relief with Sony co-financing some of their other projects.... One thing is for certain Bond 23 out of necessity is going to have a small budget, what this will entail we have to wait to see.

That means smaller P&A too, which will be nice for MGM if they are saddled with those costs. However, if EON's time crunch issue results in a weak script thrown together at the last minute and not enough resources to properly promote the film, then this could be a recipe for a disaster worse than LTK. We will have to see.

[Mazer Rackham]

English Agent wrote:

Thanks for the explanations.

It would be interesting to sit in and hear the discussions beteween EON and the studios about the Bond films!

Yes, i have no doubt that Bond 23 will have a smaller budget than QOS, and that maybe no bad thing, as it will hopefully get the producers to concentrate on the script more, and not to blow most of the money on action set pieces.

I think that after the generally good reception that CR received........the producers got over confident with QOS, and splashed out a ridiculous amount of money on a film, that i suppose they thought would outdo CR, but didnt.........mainly down to poor planning, and hiring of a misfit of talent to make the film.

EA

There is room to trim the budget after last time that is for certain. Part of the bloating budget is down to EON, Craig's salary and percentage hurt too but in the production budget EON gets a big chunk of change for producing.

Quark was the first film written for Craig's Bond and reflected how Craig sees the role. Director problems not withstanding I think they have the same problems today and are on the same track. CR was primarily Brozza's then another actors before more renovations were made to cram uncouth Craig in. They had talked as if lessons were learned for Quark/QOS the latest news contradicts this (from what Mendes has let slip).

2012 is going to be a tough year for movies, heck 2011 is too. I would be surprised to have Bond 23 if it is delivered on time make much of a dent. It may come close to Quark in BO numbers although with fewer tickets sold. It also could do a lot worse if the taste of QOS lingers longer than they'd like and especially if the advertising budget is slashed. Although I'd slash it becuase there is so much that can be done synergisticly promote Bond.

This is where the fun begins, although I have my own expectations for the next few months.

[Bond77]

by Bond77 » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:00 pm

Not really. If it is successful MGM wants/NEEDS a piece of the action.

Under what circumstances would Sony have taken more or less than 50%? I am also interested in knowing why Sony cares about the well being of MGM? For awhile it look like Paramount was willing to step in.

Babs is still fighting she can always refuse to make the next film then wait and see what happens. MGM is in such a place they need a Brozza-esque thriving Bond franchise in their portfolio. For MGMs part they will push for Bond 23 come hell or high water, my guess is they'll try for more changes in Bond 24.

If anything happens to postpone or delay it then all bets are off.

My guess is that MGM wants to get Bond 23 out of the way, thus ending the Craig era. MGM is banking on EON recasting Bond with someone better and they hope to be making some real money with whoever that is for Bond 24. Betting that EON gets the casting of Bond right the next time around is dangerous though. The quote that comes to mind is from Diana Rigg in OHMSS , "I wouldn't go banco on that".


F

rom what I've heard Craig's 2012 is going to be booked. Things can change.
Traditionally Bond has taken 8 to 6 months to film, if EON changes how they work maybe it would be easier to work around actors schedules in the future

This could probably save them money too. Maybe EON should produce a script that keeps them mostly at Pinewood and Western Europe this time around. Save on time and money.

Quoted for truth

Thanks

[JackWade CIA]

Postby JackWade CIA » Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:14 pm
This is good news. I am not convinced Daniel Craig is the man to have back after Quantum, a new man in the holster would have insured a big turnout and putting to bed all this nonsense they decided to focus on in Quantum. Making the deadlines could be another problem Bond has never been a quick turnaround production. Wait I take that back Bond after the first few movies has not been a quick turnaround project. Unless these guys overnight became the slyest producers on the planet I don't feel much work was being done on Bond 23 before now. I have to wonder if they have it in them to make a competent effort with such a sort turnover.

[Alessandra]

Postby JackWade CIA » Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:14 pm
This is good news. I am not convinced Daniel Craig is the man to have back after Quantum, a new man in the holster would have insured a big turnout and putting to bed all this nonsense they decided to focus on in Quantum. Making the deadlines could be another problem Bond has never been a quick turnaround production. Wait I take that back Bond after the first few movies has not been a quick turnaround project. Unless these guys overnight became the slyest producers on the planet I don't feel much work was being done on Bond 23 before now. I have to wonder if they have it in them to make a competent effort with such a sort turnover.

Alessandra » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:25 pm


That is what Mazer and I have been wondering about for quite some time now. They are extremely late with everything at this point, and the fact they are INCREDIBLY inefficient in managing resources and production makes this delay much worse than it would be for your average movie. So the real issue at this point is where the HELL they are ACTUALLY at with everything. Because there is absolutely no finished script, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has been cast and as far as locations go there MAY have been ONE location scouted. That is all that we know for sure so far. Unless there's a hidden script somewhere, which I highly doubt given they put in a new writer only three months ago, I doubt any significant progress has been made. Nobody has been cast and that's a definite, if anyone had been cast news would be all over the place, their agents and publicists would be hard at work on it. Since there's absolutely no such situation, that most definitely means that EVERY single role in the movie other than Bond and M is to be cast. Which is, at this point, quite ridiculous.

[Kristatos]

Alessandra wrote

:NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has been cast

Apart from Craig and Dench, obviously.

[Omega]

Alessandra wrote

:NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has been cast

Apart from Craig and Dench, obviously.

he rumored names from what I a nobody can find are coming up bust. Simon Russell Beale is the only one who might be up for it.

[Mazer Rackham]

We talked about the realities behind the Bond Budget cuts this offer a little more insight to the new realities in Hollywood and why Bond has to watch their Ps and Qs

Code: Select all

latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-comedy-20110705,0,3794008.story
latimes.com
Trying to sell a comedy movie? Ha.
Studios are hesitant to make them because comedies' DVD sales have plummeted faster than the overall market, and their humor often doesn't translate well overseas.

By Ben Fritz, Los Angeles Times

July 5, 2011
Advertisement

Getting comedies onto the big screen has become a sobering business in Hollywood.

Once one of the movie industry's most successful genres, with stars such as Eddie Murphy and Will Ferrell boasting $20-million paychecks, comedy is now among the most challenging propositions for the studios that bankroll them.

The fact that they typically aren't popular overseas — where culturally specific humor can be difficult to translate — has become a larger obstacle in an increasingly global film business. But even more significant is that comedies have been hit particularly hard by the dramatic slump in sales of DVDs, which have long accounted for the majority of profits on most movies.

DVD revenue for the average comedy plummeted 63% from 2006 to 2010, according to research firm IHS Screen Digest, compared with a 39% decline in the overall market.

"A lot of the income generated from comedies was because people were buying an enormous amount of DVDs," said Judd Apatow, one of the most powerful producers in the slumping comedy business. "That has slowed down, and where it affects us is 'What are the budgets of these movies?'"

Just a few years ago, live-action studio comedies frequently cost more than $50 million, with much of that money going to pay big-name stars and directors. The new model for Hollywood is the recently released hit "Bad Teacher." Sony Pictures spent only $19 million to produce the film. Star Cameron Diaz took an upfront payment of $1 million compared with the roughly $8 million she collected for co-starring with Tom Cruise in last year's "Knight and Day," according to a person with knowledge of the actress' compensation, who requested anonymity because of the privacy of the contract.

"Because of the weakening DVD market, even when we love the material it doesn't make sense for us to make a creatively risky or daring comedy for much more than $25 million," said Doug Belgrad, president of Sony's main film division, Columbia Pictures.

The only other option, studio executives say, is to aim for more money overseas. Animated family comedies such as "Rio" and "Kung Fu Panda" remain hugely popular around the world, but live-action ones are a tougher sell. That means filmmakers need to include creative elements in their comedies — be that in the casting, storytelling or setting — that are specifically designed to appeal to foreign audiences.

With this Friday's release of "Zookeeper," Sony is hoping star Kevin James will buck his weak track record overseas because he's surrounded with computer-generated talking animals, which traditionally have been popular internationally.

At Paramount Pictures, the studio is prioritizing comedic concepts that can play well abroad. Next May's "The Dictator," for instance, features "Borat" star Sacha Baron Cohen as a Saddam Hussein-like autocrat.

"We're trying to find comedies that travel internationally, which tend to be more physical or situational," said Adam Goodman, president of Paramount Film Group. "Comedy based on speech patterns and jokes have a harder time overseas."

Comedy can still can bring surprise breakout hits, such as this year's "Bridesmaids" and 2009's "The Hangover." The sequel "The Hangover Part II" is so far the highest-grossing movie of the year in the U.S. and Canada, with $245 million at the domestic box office.

But studios have also lost significant amounts of money in the last few years on comedies produced for more than $50 million. Such expensive disappointments have included director James L. Brooks' "How Do You Know," the Vince Vaughn-Kevin James buddy comedy "The Dilemma," the Will Ferrell fantasy comedy "Land of the Lost" and Steve Carell's "Dinner for Schmucks."

For comedy producers — those who make their living selling movie ideas and scripts to studios — the business has simply gotten tougher.

"There used to be a lot more confidence that studios could make money, and a $60-million budget for a comedy was fine," said Paul Young, a partner at comedy management and production company Principato-Young Entertainment. "Now they're buying fewer projects and putting pressure on costs."

Young said his company recently shopped a comedy project with two well-known stars, whom he declined to identify, that was expected to cost more than $60 million. Studios responded that they could buy the script only if the budget was less than $50 million, which he said was impossible given the talent involved.

As a result, he said, the project fizzled. "That would have been a slam dunk five years ago," he said.

Increasing concern about the economics of comedies has also led studios to increasingly rely on well-known names with track records. That's why Apatow, Adam Sandler and "Hangover" director Todd Phillips remain among the busiest people on Hollywood's comedy circuit.

"There's a small power elite in the comedy world who can increase the likelihood of a sale," said David Friendly, who has produced such comedies as "Little Miss Sunshine," "Big Momma's House" and "Meet Dave." "I was at lunch with a studio head who said, 'Bring me that idea with Ben Stiller and we'll do it.'"

As digital distribution becomes more popular, it could provide a boost for filmmakers who want to make people laugh. Comedy is the No. 1 movie category for video-on-demand rentals, according to Rentrak Corp. The most popular on-demand title of all time for Universal Pictures is the 2009 Vince Vaughn comedy "Couples Retreat," which beat stronger box-office performers such as "Fast & Furious" and "Despicable Me."

But the people who run Hollywood aren't giving up on big-screen comedies. The many executives and producers who grew up on classics of the 1970s, '80s and '90s like "Animal House," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Groundhog Day" say they're determined to keep the genre alive despite the challenges.

"It takes some discipline and clarity early in the process to get over the internal hurdles we have now to make a comedy," Belgrad said. "But most talent now are willing to make creative deals and producers are rising to the occasion so we can make the movies work."