Bond77 wrote:
Interesting analysis, and spot on, according to what I've read on my end. It's evident that the James Bond franchise played a part in the deal.
I don't know if Sony/Columbia went as far as to wave the rights to Casino Royale in front of MGM/UA like a carrot on a stick to enhance the deal, but it wouldn't surprise me. Especially when you consider how openly Quentin Tarrantino discussed making a film based on Ian Fleming's first 007 novel.
Regardless, you are right that the creditors are nervous. I think someone involved with the situation leaked that $1.5 billion potential price tag for the 007 franchise as a trial balloon. When that price was ridiculed I wouldn't be surprised if it made the higher-ups sweat.
Interesting point on the Broccoli family, but if I'm not mistaken Cubby Broccoli wasn't alive for that deal. Think things might have gone differently if he had been around?
No doubt Cubby would have made better deals and hired better actors as Bond. He was a vital man, in terms of energy and involvement in the franchise all the way to the end.
Casino Royale was traded to MGM/Eon years back in exchange for the rights to the Spider-man movie/franchise. Some think the Sony sold out their partner in the deal which also put the kibosh his Bond movie plans.
The Sweeney wrote:
Interesting mate. I like reading your insight into this stuff.....
BTW, how do you know so much about all this anyway? And what do you mean by Sony getting one over the Broc's? How exactly?
The best way for me to put it is this:
Scuttlebutt from several different sources is that Sony finagled the terms of their contract/arrangement with the Brocs. They were expecting and supposed to receive a large payout, millions and millions of dollars and didn't. Sony found a loophole or an accounting trick to do this legally.
The Borc's were very upset, but to try and make nice Sony gave them a contract for 2 new movies not related to Bond as a way of "paying them". Which while not as satisfying solution it avoids publicity a lawsuit would bring and might actually net them more money if the movies are huge hits. But it does entail all the work 2 new movies represent, when they should have been paid any way.
The other side of the coin is from Sony's POV, some noises were made about the Broc's making free with some funds that they apparently expected the studio to cover. Therefore any money they think they are owed should simply be marked down as money they already spent and perhaps didn't realize it.
Giving them a contract for 2 movies, takes care of the Broc's concern, as well as adding two movies permanently to the Sony Catalog.
Either way there was some sort of dispute over money involving Sony's partnership with the last two movies.
I think privately the Borc's would be relieved if Sony does not win the MGM buyout. They were used to being treated like royalty with the studios they partnered with, the rules were their rules and all the contracts are heavily skewed in their favor. To Sony there were a small time outfit and were treated like it. Perhaps the analogy "big fish small pond" is best suited for this situation, and when they partnered with Sony it was the other way around. Sony has lot of other movies/franchises they can make half a billion by spending much less.
Normally I'd feel bad the the producers the studio tries to screw over but the Broc's have screwed enough people in their time it's sort of karmatic justice.
I wonder with whom the Broccoli/Wilson team would like to partner with? Vice versa, who would be interested in a partnership with EON at this point?
"Normally I'd feel bad the the producers the studio tries to screw over but the Broc's have screwed enough people in their time it's sort of karmatic justice."
From what I've read, two former Bonds might feel the way you do (i.e. Connery and Brosnan)
Bond77 wrote:
Interesting analysis, and spot on, according to what I've read on my end. It's evident that the James Bond franchise played a part in the deal.
I don't know if Sony/Columbia went as far as to wave the rights to Casino Royale in front of MGM/UA like a carrot on a stick to enhance the deal, but it wouldn't surprise me. Especially when you consider how openly Quentin Tarrantino discussed making a film based on Ian Fleming's first 007 novel.
Regardless, you are right that the creditors are nervous. I think someone involved with the situation leaked that $1.5 billion potential price tag for the 007 franchise as a trial balloon. When that price was ridiculed I wouldn't be surprised if it made the higher-ups sweat.
Interesting point on the Broccoli family, but if I'm not mistaken Cubby Broccoli wasn't alive for that deal. Think things might have gone differently if he had been around?
No doubt Cubby would have made better deals and hired better actors as Bond. He was a vital man, in terms of energy and involvement in the franchise all the way to the end.
Casino Royale was traded to MGM/Eon years back in exchange for the rights to the Spider-man movie/franchise. Some think the Sony sold out their partner in the deal which also put the kibosh his Bond movie plans.
I must have got a hole in my time-line. I was under the impression that Columbia had the rights to Casino Royale because the producer who had secured the rights to the novel, Charles K. Feldman, produced the campy version for Columbia in 1967. Are you implying that sometime between 1967 and 2006, MGM/UA (and thus EON), got hold of the rights? Regardless, I wonder if some of the stock holders wish they had never seen the title Casino Royale, considering that they now hold stock in a franchise that is no where near the value they wanted and/or anticipated.
Bond77 wrote:
I must have got a hole in my time-line. I was under the impression that Columbia had the rights to Casino Royale because the producer who had secured the rights to the novel, Charles K. Feldman, produced the campy version for Columbia in 1967. Are you implying that sometime between 1967 and 2006, MGM/UA (and thus EON), got hold of the rights? Regardless, I wonder if some of the stock holders wish they had never seen the title Casino Royale, considering that they now hold stock in a franchise that is no where near the value they wanted and/or anticipated.
Sometime in the late 90's Sony with the rights to Casino Royale teamed up with Kevin McClory and his Thunderball rights to make their own Bond Franchise. It went to court as was usual for McClory.
Some people thought McClory had a better chance when Sony teaming up with him. Sony made no secret of desiring the Bond Franchise for years it seemed a perfect fit. What happened is Sony traded CR to Eon & MGM for the rights to Spider-man and then gave up the universal right to make James Bond movies, which screwed McClory. I'm sure he tired to fight it and lost. There is more detail around if you want it. I think all this happened 1999-2001.
Probably right about the stock holders wishing they held on to the rights.
Bond77 wrote:
I must have got a hole in my time-line. I was under the impression that Columbia had the rights to Casino Royale because the producer who had secured the rights to the novel, Charles K. Feldman, produced the campy version for Columbia in 1967. Are you implying that sometime between 1967 and 2006, MGM/UA (and thus EON), got hold of the rights? Regardless, I wonder if some of the stock holders wish they had never seen the title Casino Royale, considering that they now hold stock in a franchise that is no where near the value they wanted and/or anticipated.
Sometime in the late 90's Sony with the rights to Casino Royale teamed up with Kevin McClory and his Thunderball rights to make their own Bond Franchise. It went to court as was usual for McClory.
Some people thought McClory had a better chance when Sony teaming up with him. Sony made no secret of desiring the Bond Franchise for years it seemed a perfect fit. What happened is Sony traded CR to Eon & MGM for the rights to Spider-man and then gave up the universal right to make James Bond movies, which screwed McClory. I'm sure he tired to fight it and lost. There is more detail around if you want it. I think all this happened 1999-2001.
Probably right about the stock holders wishing they held on to the rights.
Right, now I remember. Once that deal with Sony happened then McClory tried to make Warhead 2000, or something like that. It was another remake of Thunderball.
I don't envy the position of those stock holders right now. This Sony thing is a mess.
Favorite Bond Movie: Moonraker Goldfinger The Spy Who Loved Me
Favorite Movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crazy For Christmas, The Empire Strikes Back, League of Gentlemen (1960's British film), Big Trouble in Little China, Police Academy 2, Carry On At Your Convenience, Commando, Halloween III: Season of the Witch,
Warhead would have been fun. I do think it was impossible to make a rival series. There always seemed to be a number of intractable legal difficulties.
Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:Warhead would have been fun. I do think it was impossible to make a rival series. There always seemed to be a number of intractable legal difficulties.
Eh, if they tried to make it in 2009 ..I don't know.
A Steady Pain thankfully ends it's run this weekend in NYC. As Broccoli dreams of Tony nominations for her pointless farce and MGW is ordered out of hibernation, what Bond work will follow?
Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:Warhead would have been fun. I do think it was impossible to make a rival series. There always seemed to be a number of intractable legal difficulties.
That is why I think they can not use Blofeld again. All this talk of Michael Sheen, Hugh Jackman or whoever taking on the role are rubbish.
"Those were the days when we still associated Bond with suave, old school actors such as Sean Connery and Roger Moore,"
"Daniel didn't have a hint of suave about him," - Patsy Palmer
bjmdds wrote:Robert Downey jr. with a scar as the new Blofeld?
I'm sure(if they get desperate enough..and the way things have been going that may be sooner rather than later) Babs and Mike might bring Blofeld back with someone inappropriate in the role. I mean, Michael Sheen was rumored to be playing Blofeld?That is the definition of WTF.
bjmdds wrote:Robert Downey jr. with a scar as the new Blofeld?
I'm sure(if they get desperate enough..and the way things have been going that may be sooner rather than later) Babs and Mike might bring Blofeld back with someone inappropriate in the role. I mean, Michael Sheen was rumored to be playing Blofeld?That is the definition of WTF.
I think you guys pay way too much attention to tabloid rumours. 95% of them turn out to be complete bollocks, and it's been that way as long as I remember (there was inaccurate stuff being written about FYEO back when I first started reading newspapers in my early teens, circa 1980).
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
Probably right about the tabloid rumors. Thank god they didn't have boards like this one and The Place That Can't Be Named back in the day..I can imagine the sort of w*anking and rumors that would have been going on.
bjmdds wrote:A Steady Pain thankfully ends it's run this weekend in NYC. As Broccoli dreams of Tony nominations for her pointless farce and MGW is ordered out of hibernation, what Bond work will follow?
"Tony Award winner Daniel Craig as James Bond in You Only Bourne Twice"
bjmdds wrote:A Steady Pain thankfully ends it's run this weekend in NYC. As Broccoli dreams of Tony nominations for her pointless farce and MGW is ordered out of hibernation, what Bond work will follow?
"Tony Award winner Daniel Craig as James Bond in You Only Bourne Twice"
If the rumours about Matt Damon leaving Bourne are true, then maybe Craggy will take over that role too, to create the world's most expensive spot the difference contest.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
bjmdds wrote:A Steady Pain thankfully ends it's run this weekend in NYC. As Broccoli dreams of Tony nominations for her pointless farce and MGW is ordered out of hibernation, what Bond work will follow?
"Tony Award winner Daniel Craig as James Bond in You Only Bourne Twice"
If the rumours about Matt Damon leaving Bourne are true, then maybe Craggy will take over that role too, to create the world's most expensive spot the difference contest.
with someone inappropriate in the role. I mean, Michael Sheen was rumored to be playing Blofeld?That is the definition of WTF.
