I'm not quite sure that the 1950s sensibilities would go over too well for a 2010s audience though. Perhaps some compromises would need to be made - thus rendering them not-quite-so-faithful adaptations...
Bond cancelled
- Thread starter Captain Shaw
- Start date
I'm not quite sure that the 1950s sensibilities would go over too well for a 2010s audience though. Perhaps some compromises would need to be made - thus rendering them not-quite-so-faithful adaptations...
I'm not quite sure that the 1950s sensibilities would go over too well for a 2010s audience though. Perhaps some compromises would need to be made - thus rendering them not-quite-so-faithful adaptations...
Sony badly wanted to get its hands on MGM's library of titles as part of its Blu-ray push, but it didn't have the cash on hand to afford a $5 billion purchase (about half of which was to cover MGM's debt at the time). So, it formed a consortium of buyers, comprising Sony, Comcast and some investment groups (Providence Equity, TPG Capital, DLJ Merchant Banking and the Quadrangle Group), to get all the cash together. The investment bankers put up about 70 percent of the funding, though, leaving Sony with a 20 percent share and Comcast only 10 percent.
As part of the purchase agreement, Sony received a contract to handle the distribution of the MGM library. However, Providence Equity, noting that Sony hadn't exactly been setting the world on fire with its home video efforts as of late, inserted an early termination clause into the distribution contract, stating that the deal could be yanked and the library sold elsewhere if Sony didn't hit certain financial targets. That clause was exercised in 2006, and the distribution rights to the library were then sold to Fox for $625 million in cash. Essentially, now, Sony holds 20 percent of MGM and has no say in its operations.
Still don't quite understand how the creditors would think of holding up a Bond movie (or Hobbit, for that matter). Sure, don't let MGM go making shit films willy-nilly, but with these two franchises in particular, they're guaranteed to make a profit. Even if you have to go a little more into debt to make them, you're basically printing money with these two (3, if you count the Hobbit as 2 movies). That can only HELP the bottom line, and decrease debt, no?
If I owe you $50, and tell you that if you give me $2 more, I'll be able to pay you $30, isn't that an obvious win? A little more debt upfront, but after a fairly short turnaround, more money comes in and debt overall is less. Why would you stop that? If it was some random movie, definitely tell them to wait, but how much did the Lord of the Rings series make? More than a Billion, I thought...
If I owe you $50, and tell you that if you give me $2 more, I'll be able to pay you $30, isn't that an obvious win? A little more debt upfront, but after a fairly short turnaround, more money comes in and debt overall is less. Why would you stop that? If it was some random movie, definitely tell them to wait, but how much did the Lord of the Rings series make? More than a Billion, I thought...
Same idea, though, isn't it? The debt-holders should be willing to give MGM more money, and float them a loan, in order for them to make Bond and the Hobbit. They'll both make WAY more money than they cost, which lets MGM pay back the debt-holders the additional they owe, plus a chunk of the outstanding debt that would otherwise just sit and die in bankrupcy...
At last count, MGM had something like 117 individual creditors and more than $3.7 billion in debt. It's a lot more complex than the studio simply owing a bucketload of money to a few banks.
And, really, with MGM's financial history (it had $2.5 billion of debt wiped out in its sale in 2005, and managed to accrue $3.7 billion more in under five years), you'd have to be insane to float the studio more money, especially in the throes of the worst economy since the Great Depression. When a company doesn't have the money to keep the lights on, you don't write another check in the hopes of maybe realizing a return on the investment in the event that a few movies do get made.
At this point, it's far more likely that the loans get called in and the studio undergoes a massive debt restructuring, leaving the creditors in charge. At that point, MGM properties would likely be sold off piecemeal.
And, really, with MGM's financial history (it had $2.5 billion of debt wiped out in its sale in 2005, and managed to accrue $3.7 billion more in under five years), you'd have to be insane to float the studio more money, especially in the throes of the worst economy since the Great Depression. When a company doesn't have the money to keep the lights on, you don't write another check in the hopes of maybe realizing a return on the investment in the event that a few movies do get made.
At this point, it's far more likely that the loans get called in and the studio undergoes a massive debt restructuring, leaving the creditors in charge. At that point, MGM properties would likely be sold off piecemeal.
I thoroughly enjoyed Quantum - its hard-boiled intensity was far closer to Ian Fleming's Bond tales (along with CR) than any of the films since Dr. No and From Russia with Love. The duology of Casino Royale/Quantum (which in many ways seem like a single story to me) is probably the highlight of the series for me, and I'm a huge Bond fan.
Those who have read the original novels know they are tightly-plotted, grim, often cynical thrillers and Bond is a moody, humorless character who bears little to no resemblance to the popular later-Connery/Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan depictions of 007. In most of his stories, Bond gets the crap beaten out of him and while he does indulge in a fair amount of casual sex, his disdain for women in general is a far cry from the Casanova of the films. His enjoyment of food and drink is far more sensual and hedonostic than his sexual escapades.
Daniel Craig is by far the closest to capture Fleming's Bond. Don't get me wrong, I love the wisecracking, womanizing, gadget-loving movie version of Bond, but it's nice that after more than a dozen of these films the producers decided to go back to the original source material to reimagine the character. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll see a third Craig film at some point.
Those who have read the original novels know they are tightly-plotted, grim, often cynical thrillers and Bond is a moody, humorless character who bears little to no resemblance to the popular later-Connery/Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan depictions of 007. In most of his stories, Bond gets the crap beaten out of him and while he does indulge in a fair amount of casual sex, his disdain for women in general is a far cry from the Casanova of the films. His enjoyment of food and drink is far more sensual and hedonostic than his sexual escapades.
Daniel Craig is by far the closest to capture Fleming's Bond. Don't get me wrong, I love the wisecracking, womanizing, gadget-loving movie version of Bond, but it's nice that after more than a dozen of these films the producers decided to go back to the original source material to reimagine the character. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll see a third Craig film at some point.
I would love to know how they went $3.7 billion in the red in the first place?
Did they try to remake raise the titanic
Did they try to remake raise the titanic
I would love to know how they went $3.7 billion in the red in the first place?
Did they try to remake raise the titanic
The company has been in financial trouble for decades. Expensive movies with little return, money poured into projects that never panned out (supposedly, more than $10 million was poured into Darren Aronofsky's RoboCop remake before it was shelved), poor home video sales, rapidly diminishing returns on its television properties (Stargate
) ... it's basically been hemorrhaging money for years and years and years.
From your mouth (er.... keyboard) to God's ears, mate.
But with all the rights issues involved, even though we all would agree it would be a sure thing, you can bet it would never happen.
I'm not that crazy about lawyers, but entertainment lawyers in particular should burn in hell.
Money, Money! Blah!
Casino Royale was a good movie I think, just not Bond enough for me,and QofS just went too far. I think I like Daniel Craig, but I don't think he's been given something with Oscar shine worthy to it just yet. I would have loved to have seen him befedoraed in a fifties truly back to Bond telling. But if they end up doing that now in a few years-that is indeed a reboot of a reboot!
Casino Royale was a good movie I think, just not Bond enough for me,and QofS just went too far. I think I like Daniel Craig, but I don't think he's been given something with Oscar shine worthy to it just yet. I would have loved to have seen him befedoraed in a fifties truly back to Bond telling. But if they end up doing that now in a few years-that is indeed a reboot of a reboot!
^ To be fair, none of the 007 movies have ever seemed likely to demand the attention of Oscar voters. But IMHO Craig's performance in Casino is as deserving an element of a Bond movie ever.
I'm halfway through the Ian Fleming novels, and for my money the literary Bond lies somewhere between early Connery, Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig. Apart from having a few more witticisms than his literary counterpart, I actually think Timothy Dalton (particularly in The Living Daylights) is the closest the films have come to Fleming's Bond (both in looks and character). The Bond of the novels has a patriarchal attitude to women, but he has genuine love affairs and doesn't try to nail every women in sight the way that his cinematic counterpart does. The sexual encounter between Daniel Craig's Bond and Strawberry Fields, for example, would be very out of character for the literary Bond (at least as far as his behaviour in the first six novels).
It was a major cash cow. All three movies were made at the same time, and the first movie alone made more than enough money to cover all the expenses for the trilogy. The second two movie releases were pure gravy.
New Line Cinema made $3 billion on the Lord of the Rings trilogy and still went completely broke only a few years later.
That's what happens when you put money into making flops like The Golden Compass.
From Mike Fleming at Deadline Hollywood:
Re: Bond NOT cancelled
^ That's a nice bit of good news.
^ That's a nice bit of good news.
