Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Sony and MGM split
Sony and MGM split [message #283622] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 00:34
Eric Grayson  
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=aMOP 7J2fz0NQ&refer=j
apan

I got notice this afternoon that MGM is now taking back control of the
distribution of its films on 35mm. Note it doesn't affect Casino
Royale (which I note needs to be a Sony production anyway, since they
own the story rights).

This will have long-lasting repercussions for EON. Regardless of your
own personal feelings about Daniel Craig, it's pretty universally known
that the Sony execs wanted to stick with Brosnan. It's too late to
replace Craig now, but the poor guy is going to be under a microscope
with this picture. If the new brass at MGM doesn't like him, then it's
back to the table.

Very interesting development. This looked like to be an easy, friendly
merger and it looks like it didn't turn out that way. MGM's attitude
of making more productions and relying less on its library is risky and
may pay off or may make them takeover bait again. This ALSO will be
influenced by how well CR does at the box office.

Man, I'm glad I'm not working on THAT picture!

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283633 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 08:18
Duggy  
Eric Grayson wrote:
> I got notice this afternoon that MGM is now taking back control of the
> distribution of its films on 35mm. Note it doesn't affect Casino
> Royale (which I note needs to be a Sony production anyway, since they
> own the story rights).

I thought Sony had already dropped the story rights.

I think it's more that they aren't messing with things already in
productions.

> This will have long-lasting repercussions for EON. Regardless of your
> own personal feelings about Daniel Craig, it's pretty universally known
> that the Sony execs wanted to stick with Brosnan. It's too late to
> replace Craig now, but the poor guy is going to be under a microscope
> with this picture. If the new brass at MGM doesn't like him, then it's
> back to the table.

I think Craig would be under the microscope either way, but... if Sony
wanted Brosnan and Sony aren't involved anymore how does that affect
Daniels?

===
= DUG.
===
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283641 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 16:04
Eric Grayson  
MGM wants to make its way as its own production company, finance its
own productions, not go through Sony. They're using Fox for their
video outlet.

This means that the release of CR will have a HUGE effect of MGM's
future. It will still be co-produced by Sony, (as will the next Bond
picture as well, unless things change). This means that if CR tanks,
MGM has little working capital for other things, and maybe they will
get grumpier about the Bond pix. If CR does well, then it will mean
bigger and better things for the studio.

Sony is so much bigger than MGM that the success/failure of CR was not
a huge deal for them. They certainly would LIKE the money, but
they're not in a make or break situation with it.

Eric




In article <1149661087.804967.185480 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> Eric Grayson wrote:
> > I got notice this afternoon that MGM is now taking back control of the
> > distribution of its films on 35mm. Note it doesn't affect Casino
> > Royale (which I note needs to be a Sony production anyway, since they
> > own the story rights).
>
> I thought Sony had already dropped the story rights.
>
> I think it's more that they aren't messing with things already in
> productions.
>
> > This will have long-lasting repercussions for EON. Regardless of your
> > own personal feelings about Daniel Craig, it's pretty universally known
> > that the Sony execs wanted to stick with Brosnan. It's too late to
> > replace Craig now, but the poor guy is going to be under a microscope
> > with this picture. If the new brass at MGM doesn't like him, then it's
> > back to the table.
>
> I think Craig would be under the microscope either way, but... if Sony
> wanted Brosnan and Sony aren't involved anymore how does that affect
> Daniels?
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
>
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283642 ] Mi, 07 Juni 2006 16:10
Duggy  
Eric Grayson wrote:
> MGM wants to make its way as its own production company, finance its
> own productions, not go through Sony. They're using Fox for their
> video outlet.

So it seems.

> This means that the release of CR will have a HUGE effect of MGM's
> future. It will still be co-produced by Sony, (as will the next Bond
> picture as well, unless things change). This means that if CR tanks,
> MGM has little working capital for other things, and maybe they will
> get grumpier about the Bond pix. If CR does well, then it will mean
> bigger and better things for the studio.

Yes.

> Sony is so much bigger than MGM that the success/failure of CR was not
> a huge deal for them. They certainly would LIKE the money, but
> they're not in a make or break situation with it.

I'm not sure how any of this answers my questions.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283664 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 03:50
Eric Grayson  
OK, then please try rephrasing said questions because I didn't
understand them...

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283671 ] Fr, 09 Juni 2006 01:33
phil.gerrard1  
A related story from www.commanderbond.net:

http://commanderbond.net/quicknews/index.php?action=item& ;item=31338

As somebody who breaks into a sweat every time an ATM asks me if I want
to see my bank balance, I think I should leave any comment about this
to people who understand economics, finance, money, etc...

Best

Phil
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283678 ] Fr, 09 Juni 2006 15:09
Duggy  
Eric Grayson wrote:
> OK, then please try rephrasing said questions because I didn't
> understand them...

OK.

I thought Sony had already dropped the story rights.

I think it's more that they aren't messing with things already in
productions.

I think Dainel would be under the microscope either way, but... if Sony
wanted Brosnan and Sony aren't involved anymore how does that affect
Craig?

===
= DUG.
===
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283681 ] Fr, 09 Juni 2006 18:57
Eric Grayson  
In article <1149858583.047733.314100 [at] f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, I
used to have a Username <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> Eric Grayson wrote:
> > OK, then please try rephrasing said questions because I didn't
> > understand them...
>
> OK.
>
> I thought Sony had already dropped the story rights.

I don't understand this. Sony is co-producer on CR and (maybe) one
Bond after this. Therefore since Sony owns the story rights and
they're the producer, there's no issue of them dropping it. It's like
McClory and Thunderball.

> I think it's more that they aren't messing with things already in
> productions.

Yes, Sony isn't messing with things, but this is do or die for MGM,
which isn't exactly on the best financial footing.

> I think Dainel would be under the microscope either way, but... if Sony
> wanted Brosnan and Sony aren't involved anymore how does that affect
> Craig?

Ah, OK, I see this question now. Sony wanted Brosnan but was willing
to settle for Craig. That dynamic has changed now because the
producers now have to report to MGM brass, NOT Sony brass. If CR
doesn't make a lot of money, MGM is going to be very upset with EON and
tell them, "I don't care what you do, but make certain this film makes
a lot of money." It will be a case like DAF where OHMSS hadn't made
the money they'd wanted, so it became a case of "Please the audience at
all costs."

Craig is absolutely under the microscope, but now even more so. Sony
wasn't going to go bankrupt if CR failed, and they might have been
willing to give him 2-3 films to get a footing (Moore needed that, for
example). MGM can't afford to do that. If this film doesn't make
money, they're going to be screaming for changes. It may be the star,
it may be the stories, or it may be the budgets will be cut. But there
will be changes.

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283682 ] Sa, 10 Juni 2006 00:22
James Hunter  
Hi all,

I found this (through the CommanderBond.net site) and thought it was
interesting...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13186576/

According to this report, MGM won't have any money of its own (i.e. business
unit MGM's money, as opposed to owner company Sony) involved in the
production of the film. As CEO Evans Sloan says, "There's so much interest
in investing in movies that outside production entities are able to raise
money... They're willing to invest their own money and they're financing the
films." Or, to put it another way, Bond films will be financed by Sony.

If I read this correctly, MGM's interest (and owner Sony's) will be on
revenues through distribution only and will not include production. This
means that financing for production will come through Eon and Sony; MGM's
say will come about through distribution. Now, I realize that all
distribution avenues are what result in revenue - but since MGM will not
have a say in how the productions are developed and produced, Sony will
always have a bigger say on how the Bond films are made than MGM.

Since the powers-that-be at Sony seem happy with what's happening with CR so
far, does that not bode well for Sony's continued partnership with Eon? MGM
and Eon had such an adversarial "who's in control-and-command" relationship
that it sometimes put great pressure on how Eon made the films; with Sony's
much more stable position, I think that Eon can continue to proceed more
along the lines they would like to see. Oh, and by the way, prior to
Craig's winning the role, what evidence was there for Sony execs wanting
Brosnan to continue? I've seen none.

Anyway, this report makes me much more comfortable that MGM is out of Eon's
way (for the most part) and that the Eon-Sony relationship can go forward
comfortably.

Thanks!
James

"Eric Grayson" <filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:090620061258272760%filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net...
> In article <1149858583.047733.314100 [at] f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, I
> used to have a Username <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Eric Grayson wrote:
> > > OK, then please try rephrasing said questions because I didn't
> > > understand them...
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > I thought Sony had already dropped the story rights.
>
> I don't understand this. Sony is co-producer on CR and (maybe) one
> Bond after this. Therefore since Sony owns the story rights and
> they're the producer, there's no issue of them dropping it. It's like
> McClory and Thunderball.
>
> > I think it's more that they aren't messing with things already in
> > productions.
>
> Yes, Sony isn't messing with things, but this is do or die for MGM,
> which isn't exactly on the best financial footing.
>
> > I think Dainel would be under the microscope either way, but... if Sony
> > wanted Brosnan and Sony aren't involved anymore how does that affect
> > Craig?
>
> Ah, OK, I see this question now. Sony wanted Brosnan but was willing
> to settle for Craig. That dynamic has changed now because the
> producers now have to report to MGM brass, NOT Sony brass. If CR
> doesn't make a lot of money, MGM is going to be very upset with EON and
> tell them, "I don't care what you do, but make certain this film makes
> a lot of money." It will be a case like DAF where OHMSS hadn't made
> the money they'd wanted, so it became a case of "Please the audience at
> all costs."
>
> Craig is absolutely under the microscope, but now even more so. Sony
> wasn't going to go bankrupt if CR failed, and they might have been
> willing to give him 2-3 films to get a footing (Moore needed that, for
> example). MGM can't afford to do that. If this film doesn't make
> money, they're going to be screaming for changes. It may be the star,
> it may be the stories, or it may be the budgets will be cut. But there
> will be changes.
>
> Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283695 ] Sa, 10 Juni 2006 16:56
Eric Grayson  
This is not entirely correct... Sony has rights that extend to CR and
the next Bond film from what I've been told by insiders, and that's it.
They also have rights to the next Pink Panther film as well, but then
that's it for that franchise.

MGM has no money AT PRESENT to invest in the Bond pictures, and CR will
be finished with Sony money, but MGM is making money from the
distribution of said film, and that makes it do-or-die for MGM.

MGM is taking a big risk with this... they've been slowly making
themselves over as a big studio again, after not having been one for
maybe 30 years. It would be kinda cool to have them re-emerge as a
major studio in town once again, but whether it will happen is up in
the air. It depends on how well CR does and the next Pink Panther
does.

Eric


In article <fxmig.48627$Xx1.609293 [at] weber.videotron.net>, James Hunter
<jameshunter [at] videotron.ca> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I found this (through the CommanderBond.net site) and thought it was
> interesting...
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13186576/
>
> According to this report, MGM won't have any money of its own (i.e. business
> unit MGM's money, as opposed to owner company Sony) involved in the
> production of the film. As CEO Evans Sloan says, "There's so much interest
> in investing in movies that outside production entities are able to raise
> money... They're willing to invest their own money and they're financing the
> films." Or, to put it another way, Bond films will be financed by Sony.
>
> If I read this correctly, MGM's interest (and owner Sony's) will be on
> revenues through distribution only and will not include production. This
> means that financing for production will come through Eon and Sony; MGM's
> say will come about through distribution. Now, I realize that all
> distribution avenues are what result in revenue - but since MGM will not
> have a say in how the productions are developed and produced, Sony will
> always have a bigger say on how the Bond films are made than MGM.
>
> Since the powers-that-be at Sony seem happy with what's happening with CR so
> far, does that not bode well for Sony's continued partnership with Eon? MGM
> and Eon had such an adversarial "who's in control-and-command" relationship
> that it sometimes put great pressure on how Eon made the films; with Sony's
> much more stable position, I think that Eon can continue to proceed more
> along the lines they would like to see. Oh, and by the way, prior to
> Craig's winning the role, what evidence was there for Sony execs wanting
> Brosnan to continue? I've seen none.
>
> Anyway, this report makes me much more comfortable that MGM is out of Eon's
> way (for the most part) and that the Eon-Sony relationship can go forward
> comfortably.
>
> Thanks!
> James
>
> "Eric Grayson" <filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:090620061258272760%filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net...
> > In article <1149858583.047733.314100 [at] f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, I
> > used to have a Username <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Grayson wrote:
> > > > OK, then please try rephrasing said questions because I didn't
> > > > understand them...
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > I thought Sony had already dropped the story rights.
> >
> > I don't understand this. Sony is co-producer on CR and (maybe) one
> > Bond after this. Therefore since Sony owns the story rights and
> > they're the producer, there's no issue of them dropping it. It's like
> > McClory and Thunderball.
> >
> > > I think it's more that they aren't messing with things already in
> > > productions.
> >
> > Yes, Sony isn't messing with things, but this is do or die for MGM,
> > which isn't exactly on the best financial footing.
> >
> > > I think Dainel would be under the microscope either way, but... if Sony
> > > wanted Brosnan and Sony aren't involved anymore how does that affect
> > > Craig?
> >
> > Ah, OK, I see this question now. Sony wanted Brosnan but was willing
> > to settle for Craig. That dynamic has changed now because the
> > producers now have to report to MGM brass, NOT Sony brass. If CR
> > doesn't make a lot of money, MGM is going to be very upset with EON and
> > tell them, "I don't care what you do, but make certain this film makes
> > a lot of money." It will be a case like DAF where OHMSS hadn't made
> > the money they'd wanted, so it became a case of "Please the audience at
> > all costs."
> >
> > Craig is absolutely under the microscope, but now even more so. Sony
> > wasn't going to go bankrupt if CR failed, and they might have been
> > willing to give him 2-3 films to get a footing (Moore needed that, for
> > example). MGM can't afford to do that. If this film doesn't make
> > money, they're going to be screaming for changes. It may be the star,
> > it may be the stories, or it may be the budgets will be cut. But there
> > will be changes.
> >
> > Eric
>
>
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283709 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 01:51
phil.gerrard1  
Eric wrote:

> MGM is taking a big risk with this... they've been slowly making
> themselves over as a big studio again, after not having been one for
> maybe 30 years. It would be kinda cool to have them re-emerge as a
> major studio in town once again, but whether it will happen is up in
> the air. It depends on how well CR does and the next Pink Panther
> does.

Interesting stuff. As a somewhat naive outsider to the business side
of film-making, can I ask whether CR turning a very respectable if not
spectacular profit - an entirely possible outcome, I would have thought
- will necessarily make studio execs get cold feet? I mean, I suspect
CR is unlikely to do the business that DAD did, but are MGM more likely
to cut the Bond franchise a little slack as compared to the new Pink
Panther movies, given that the former has produced healthy returns over
the years even with its less successful outings? For example, it
strikes me that CR stands a far greater chance of making a good amount
of money back on DVD (or whatever other formats may replace it) than a
second Steve Martin Pink Panther film might.

Best

Phil
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283713 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 02:16
Eric Grayson  
> Interesting stuff. As a somewhat naive outsider to the business side
> of film-making, can I ask whether CR turning a very respectable if not
> spectacular profit - an entirely possible outcome, I would have thought
> - will necessarily make studio execs get cold feet? I mean, I suspect
> CR is unlikely to do the business that DAD did, but are MGM more likely
> to cut the Bond franchise a little slack as compared to the new Pink
> Panther movies, given that the former has produced healthy returns over
> the years even with its less successful outings? For example, it
> strikes me that CR stands a far greater chance of making a good amount
> of money back on DVD (or whatever other formats may replace it) than a
> second Steve Martin Pink Panther film might.

The Pink Panther made $80 million at the box office, which cleared its
cost there. It's considered a hit. Anything it makes on the DVDs is
pure profit (beyond the cost of the DVDs themselves).

I would say that if CR does as well, then it will be considered a
success in MGM's eyes. A smart producer would hedge his bets on this
film and bring in the budget from the previous film somewhat, which
appears to be what they did. This will hopefully help the film be
profitable even if it is not as successful as DAD.

Remember, in the eyes of a producer/distributor, success is not
measured by whether the film is any good or not, but whether the film
makes a profit. By that measure, Moonraker is a smashing success
despite being a horrendous film (I hope you're not the poor sap who
likes MR; I forget who that is...) When you're taking an artistic
risk, with new star, you want to spend less money because you may have
made a bad call. This is why OHMSS cost less than YOLT, LALD cost less
than DAF, why TLD [I believe] cost less than AVTAK. GE is a special
case as has been discussed to death.

I personally feel that the Steve Martin Pink Panther series is artistic
homicide, because Peter Sellers is irreplaceable. But the film is a
financial success, so we'll probably see Return of the Pink Panther in
theaters in a year or so. Whether they can sustain it is less a matter
of finances than art, because it will be a challenge to keep it fresh.
Undoubtedly, the film will be worth less than the first (diminishing
returns), but Martin's under contract for a second one, so it's
probably for less pay. If the artists manage to do more with less,
which does happen, then there'll be a Pink Panther III. God, I hope
not. [For the record, I like Martin in a lot of films, but he doesn't
belong in this part. There are some things that are as good as they
will ever be already, so we should leave them alone. Bond was almost
one of those when Connery left, but they managed to parlay it into a
respectable series...]

And there you have it. Films being made not because they show any
chance of being a quality production, but rather solely because it
appears they could make money.

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283715 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 02:56
phil.gerrard1  
Eric wrote:

> Remember, in the eyes of a producer/distributor, success is not
> measured by whether the film is any good or not, but whether the film
> makes a profit. By that measure, Moonraker is a smashing success
> despite being a horrendous film (I hope you're not the poor sap who
> likes MR; I forget who that is...)

This one's yours, Mike Feeney :-)

> [For the record, I like Martin in a lot of films, but he doesn't
> belong in this part. There are some things that are as good as they
> will ever be already, so we should leave them alone. Bond was almost
> one of those when Connery left, but they managed to parlay it into a
> respectable series...]

I like Martin a hell of a lot too. What amazes me about the new Pink
Panther films is that this is, what, their fourth try at replacing
Sellers (after Arkin, Wass, and Benigni), and that somebody green-lit
yet *another* try to recast the role and revive the series, and that it
has apparently paid off despite Martin getting an even rougher ride
from the press than Daniel Craig has had IMHO. Perhaps the formula of
familiar format + well-known actor really does pay box-office dividends
in the short run, no matter how mixed the reception of the film may be.

> And there you have it. Films being made not because they show any
> chance of being a quality production, but rather solely because it
> appears they could make money.

Twas ever thus, but I wonder whether this isn't short-term thinking.
To go back to the MR example, it seems to me that FYEO was a deliberate
and very sensible attempt to ensure the long-term survival of the Bond
franchise by scaling down and proving that each film in the series did
not have to be bigger and more outlandish than the last. Then again,
the saying that 'you're only as good as your last picture' seems to be
truer now than ever, and the idea of an exec nurturing people over the
long term, allowing them to experiment, grow, and eventually become
safe long-term investments, probably started to wither and die at the
same time the old studio system did.

Damned good and lucid post, Eric, in any case.

(There's a great thesis to be written about how the word 'independent'
has gradually shifted in meaning within the entertainment industry over
the last fifty years...)

Best

Phil
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283723 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 11:03
Mac  
Eric Grayson wrote:

> The Pink Panther made $80 million at the box office, which cleared its
> cost there. It's considered a hit. Anything it makes on the DVDs is
> pure profit (beyond the cost of the DVDs themselves).

The PINK PANTHER cost $80m to PRODUCE. Factor in the print and
advertising, there's no profit there. Couple this with its ho-hum
international take of $78m (should always be greater than US) and
it will be up to DVD, TV, etc. to see the film make a significant profit.

The film hasn't even been *successful*, in the way AUSTIN POWERS:
INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY was (that film cost $17m to
produce and returned $53m US), but MGM will now be gambling
PANTHER II is the genuine smash THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME was.

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS wasn't cheaper than A VIEW TO A KILL. All the
Bonds from MOONRAKER to LICENCE TO KILL had the same budget of
$35m. Each successive Bond throughout the 1980's returned smaller
profits to the studio, with LICENCE TO KILL almost sounding the death
knell for the series.
--
-- Mac
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283725 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 11:35
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> I like Martin a hell of a lot too. What amazes me about the new Pink
> Panther films is that this is, what, their fourth try at replacing
> Sellers (after Arkin, Wass, and Benigni), and that somebody green-lit
> yet *another* try to recast the role and revive the series, and that
> it has apparently paid off despite Martin getting an even rougher ride
> from the press than Daniel Craig has had IMHO.

They'd been trying to revive the series for years in the hope of
establishing another tent-pole. They courted Rowan Atkinson,
Jim Carrey and even Adam Sandler for the role long before
Steve Martin took it.

THE PINK PANTHER and BOND alone will not revive the studio; they need
a strong slate of pictures. PINK PANTHER and Bond alone couldn't save
UA and they won't inspire MGM to rise phoenix like from the dead.

It was, after all, the huge MGM library of films that made it such a
desirable a purchase for Sony. That's software for their Blu-Ray
launch. They think they've learned a lesson from the Betamax
debacle. Have they...?

Even the seemingly almighty DreamWorks had to call it a day and sell up.
--
-- Mac
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283737 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 16:49
Eric Grayson  
>
> Twas ever thus, but I wonder whether this isn't short-term thinking.
> To go back to the MR example, it seems to me that FYEO was a deliberate
> and very sensible attempt to ensure the long-term survival of the Bond
> franchise by scaling down and proving that each film in the series did
> not have to be bigger and more outlandish than the last. Then again,
> the saying that 'you're only as good as your last picture' seems to be
> truer now than ever, and the idea of an exec nurturing people over the
> long term, allowing them to experiment, grow, and eventually become
> safe long-term investments, probably started to wither and die at the
> same time the old studio system did.

The genius of the Bond producers is that they see this and try to
factor in long-term thinking in their series. They're really hitting
for distance, and not short-term profits. It's the only series that
has consistently done this over the long haul, and look at the
dividends.

You forgot that they almost recast Roger Moore in the Sellers role as
well.

The studio system died an artificial death due to a lawsuit that Sam
Goldwyn perpetrated against the studios in the 1940s. It was
accelerated by television, although without the suit I think all the
major studios would have continued to do well except MGM. (MGM refused
to do television series and even bought the Dumont network and put it
out of business to lower its competition.) Places like UA became the
place to be in the late 50s, which is why stuff like Bond and the
Panther series settled there. UA had no studio real estate overages to
be concerned with, so they could take any old film and distribute it
for a song. Under the supreme court ruling, the big studios couldn't
lock them out. So UA grew in the 50s-70s while the big studios, except
marketing genius Universal, withered.

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283747 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 18:51
Draugnar  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4f24kbF1gofrnU1 [at] individual.net...
> THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS wasn't cheaper than A VIEW TO A KILL. All the
> Bonds from MOONRAKER to LICENCE TO KILL had the same budget of
> $35m. Each successive Bond throughout the 1980's returned smaller
> profits to the studio, with LICENCE TO KILL almost sounding the death
> knell for the series.
> --
> -- Mac

But if you factor in inflation from 1978 to 1988 (time frame in which MR and
LTK were made) then each Bond during that decade was cheaper than the
previous as their budget did not increase to match inflation.

Draugnar
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283749 ] So, 11 Juni 2006 19:03
Mac  
Draugnar wrote:

> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message

>> THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS wasn't cheaper than A VIEW TO A KILL. All the
>> Bonds from MOONRAKER to LICENCE TO KILL had the same budget of
>> $35m. Each successive Bond throughout the 1980's returned smaller
>> profits to the studio, with LICENCE TO KILL almost sounding the death
>> knell for the series.
>> --
>> -- Mac
>
> But if you factor in inflation from 1978 to 1988 (time frame in which
> MR and LTK were made) then each Bond during that decade was cheaper
> than the previous as their budget did not increase to match inflation.

Of course. What was a massive budget in 1979 wasn't as grand in 1989,
but other summer pictures had the same budget (1989's BATMAN was
budgeted at $35m). The point I was responding to is that the budget
was not cut back, as is in the case of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET
SERVICE.

Also, if you factor inflation into their box-office reciepts the profits
returned were even smaller!
--
-- Mac
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283752 ] Mo, 12 Juni 2006 01:54
phil.gerrard1  
Eric wrote:

> You forgot that they almost recast Roger Moore in the Sellers role as
> well.

I'd like to claim forgetfulness, but the fact is I don't think I ever
knew that. That seems a really odd choice, given that Moore's gift is
for verbal light comedy and he's not somebody I would ever have thought
capable of outright slapstick - indeed he's always struck me as the
most physically awkward of the actors who've played Bond.

There have been some terrific posts on the subject of the film
business, but I think I'd need some time alone with a calculator and a
long lie down before I could respond at all adequately. You guys are
*good*: why aren't you lot running the industry?

Best

Phil
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283770 ] Mo, 12 Juni 2006 21:05
Min L Shaw  
Mac wrote:

> THE PINK PANTHER and BOND alone will not revive the studio; they need
> a strong slate of pictures. PINK PANTHER and Bond alone couldn't save
> UA and they won't inspire MGM to rise phoenix like from the dead.

I know no one at MGM cares what I think, but it seems to me that
they're approaching the movie business the way the French approached
warfare in the last two centuries. After suffering defeat because
their opponent (most often Germany) had developed new technology and
new strategies, the French prepared for their next war by equipping
themselves to fight their last one. MGM seems to be approaching
movie-making in the 21st century by trying to re-create the 1970s. A
couple of franchises and golden age classics are nice, but there's
nothing new being developed. The "Barbershop" movies may not have been
as lucrative as Bond, but they were at least profitable and popular.
(Not sure about the TV series or the "Beauty Shop" spin-off film.)

Right now, two things are quite popular and successful: Properly
developed sci-fi TV series (Battlestar Galactica, The 4400, the
Stargate franchise) and comic book properties developed into films.
Now, AOL Time Warner has exclusive rights to DC Comics properties
(Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc.). Marvel
Entertainment has separated its properties; Spider-Man was developed by
Sony, the X-Men by Fox, and they just signed a 10 picture deal with
Paramount for such titles as Captain America and Nick Fury. The thing
is, though, that there are many other comics publishers that have
sustained top-selling titles that might be more cost-effectively
developed. Dimension Films turned a nice profit with Robert
Rodriguez's adaptation of Frank Miller's "Sin City," and I forgot who
made the "Hellboy" film, but it did alright, too.

Twenty years ago, looking to develop comic books into movies would have
been a lot riskier. Even by spending a billion dollars they couldn't
be produced in a way that didn't look terribly cheesy and even if you
succeeded, the masses had a much more disdainful view of such
properties. Today's biggest target demographic, though, grew up with
comic books and cartoons and retain fond memories of and/or attachments
to such properties. MGM should definitely look into finding some of
these properties and take a chance. I obviously have no idea how
interested or willing many of the independent comics creators would be
to have their series developed into a film, but it shouldn't be too
hard to find some profitable ones. Jeff Smith's "Bone" was always
popular and could easily be done as an animated film, for instance. Or
Terry Moore's "Strangers in Paradise" would be quite cost-effective,
since it never relied on super-heroes or outlandish special effects.

To supplement these larger-budget releases (which easily lend
themselves to merchandise licensing opportunities, I might add), MGM
should compete with Fox's Searchlight Productions. Help develop and
release smaller-budget films from new talents. Granted, not every
Searchlight release has been as profitable as "Napoleon Dynamite," but
from what I understand, even just a few that turn a decent profit
bankroll the rest since the budgets are so low, anyway. And the first
thing I'd do is find out what "smaller projects" George Lucas wants to
develop, since he announced after "Star Wars Episode III" was released
that he was going to focus on much smaller films hereafter.

For those of you who know the film industry better than I, how much of
this is sensible and obvious and how much is completely misinformed
naivette on my part?
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283791 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 08:48
Mike Feeney  
Eric Grayson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The genius of the Bond producers is that they see this and try to
> factor in long-term thinking in their series. They're really hitting
> for distance, and not short-term profits. It's the only series that
> has consistently done this over the long haul, and look at the
> dividends.
>

That's a very romantic notion you have, Eric -- but honestly I think
you are giving far too much credit to the Bond producers. The motion
picture industry is a business, and I doubt very much that they ever
made a conscious decision to sacrifice short-term profit on one film to
ensure the long-term survivability of the franchise. Rather, I'm
inclined to believe they honestly thought (at the time) that each film
was going to be a major hit with audiences.

Mike
"What can I bring you from Holland, Moneypenny?"
"A diamond? In a ring?"
"Would you settle for a home-made tricorder?"
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283792 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 09:01
Mike Feeney  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Twas ever thus, but I wonder whether this isn't short-term thinking.
> To go back to the MR example, it seems to me that FYEO was a deliberate
> and very sensible attempt to ensure the long-term survival of the Bond
> franchise by scaling down and proving that each film in the series did
> not have to be bigger and more outlandish than the last.

I find this hard to believe, Phil. Rather, I think its much more
likely that each film is a result of the producers' and/or creative
powers' "attitude at the moment". Sure, the producers and/or creative
powers may have felt that MR went too far in terms of being
over-the-top, so their attitude at the moment back then was to tone
down the next film. But I suspect FYEO was an immediate reaction to MR
rather than a long-term survival plan for the franchise. Kind of like
the following analogy: "I had roast beef for dinner last night, so I
think I'm in the mood for fish tonight." In fact, the next film --
OP -- has some of the most outrageously silly bits ever to be included
in the series: the Tarzan yell, telling the tiger to sit, checking the
wristwatch in the gorilla suit, etc. If anything, OP strikes me as
moving back in the direction of MR after FYEO. Which to me supports
the notion that each film is simply reflecting the producers' attitude
at the moment, and not some grand plan for the long-term direction of
the series.

Mike
"What can I bring you from Holland, Moneypenny?"
"A diamond? In a ring?"
"Would you settle for a copy of 'remedial driver's education' signed by
Paris Hilton?"
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283793 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 11:13
Mac  
Mike Feeney wrote:

> Mike
> "What can I bring you from Holland, Moneypenny?"
> "A diamond? In a ring?"
> "Would you settle for a copy of 'remedial driver's education' signed
> by Paris Hilton?"

LMAO!
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of the smell of Oxy 10 on a Prom Night."
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283799 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 15:24
phil.gerrard1  
Me, then Mike:

> > Twas ever thus, but I wonder whether this isn't short-term thinking.
> > To go back to the MR example, it seems to me that FYEO was a deliberate
> > and very sensible attempt to ensure the long-term survival of the Bond
> > franchise by scaling down and proving that each film in the series did
> > not have to be bigger and more outlandish than the last.
>
> I find this hard to believe, Phil. Rather, I think its much more
> likely that each film is a result of the producers' and/or creative
> powers' "attitude at the moment". Sure, the producers and/or creative
> powers may have felt that MR went too far in terms of being
> over-the-top, so their attitude at the moment back then was to tone
> down the next film. But I suspect FYEO was an immediate reaction to MR
> rather than a long-term survival plan for the franchise.

I'm not sure that the two are as contradictory as you're suggesting. I
mean, I doubt that EON were quite as pompous or grandiose as to say '
we must save the series and ensure its long-term survival' - that's my
spin on what they did - but they certainly seem to have made the
decision, every so often, to scale down and bring Bond back down to
earth, and that had long-term repercussions. The direction they
pursued immediately afterwards isn't all that important IMHO: the point
for me is that once they'd made those more Flemingesque films, they'd
set a benchmark to which they could always return. As I've said
before, one of the great strengths of the series is the sheer variety
of styles and moods which the films have managed to capture within
what's often thought of as a very rigid framework, which is something
Fleming did also. Was FYEO a knee-jerk reaction to MR? Quite
possibly. Did it help ensure the long-term viability of the Bond
films? I think so, whether this was at the back of EON's minds or the
forefront.

Best

Phil
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283802 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 17:09
Eric Grayson  
In article <1150181320.836323.272320 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Feeney <stromberg77 [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Eric Grayson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > The genius of the Bond producers is that they see this and try to
> > factor in long-term thinking in their series. They're really hitting
> > for distance, and not short-term profits. It's the only series that
> > has consistently done this over the long haul, and look at the
> > dividends.
> >
>
> That's a very romantic notion you have, Eric -- but honestly I think
> you are giving far too much credit to the Bond producers. The motion
> picture industry is a business, and I doubt very much that they ever
> made a conscious decision to sacrifice short-term profit on one film to
> ensure the long-term survivability of the franchise. Rather, I'm
> inclined to believe they honestly thought (at the time) that each film
> was going to be a major hit with audiences.

It's not as romantic as you think, and it's got to be relatively
true... can you name me another franchise that's lasted 40+ years over
20 films? The Japanese Godzilla franchise is pretty close, but that
burned out a couple of times with a lot of dead spots in it. The Star
Wars films have a 15+ year dead spot in them and came back with losers.

For sheer longevity, the Bond series is unbeatable, and it's largely a
testament to the producers. That's not saying I always agree with
them... I recently ran my collection of vintage trailers for the films
and noticed how the Connery Bond trailers still seem so FRESH, but the
Moore era trailers are dated, dated, dated... they really did assemble
some fantastic creative people early on and they've never topped that.

They must consider both what will be a hit with audiences and what
returns to expect. Get it wrong and you have a problem (OHMSS). Get
it right and you have a big hit (DAD). Note I like OHMSS and don't
like DAD. That's not the point.

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283803 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 17:21
Mike Feeney  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that the two are as contradictory as you're suggesting. I
> mean, I doubt that EON were quite as pompous or grandiose as to say '
> we must save the series and ensure its long-term survival' - that's my
> spin on what they did - but they certainly seem to have made the
> decision, every so often, to scale down and bring Bond back down to
> earth, and that had long-term repercussions.

But given the circumstantial evidence, I could just as easily make a
case for exactly the opposite conclusion, Phil! The evidence to
support your theory would be:

1) Following YOLT they made OHMSS
2) Following MR they made FYEO
3) Following TND they made TWINE

But I could just as easily argue that after every film that was
scaled-down/gritty/realistic/etc they made the decision that the series
would be better off for the long-term as a light-hearted escapist
tongue-in-cheek vehicle -- and that *these* were the shifts that they
deemed would ensure the series' long-term survival. The evidence to
support this theory would be:

1) Following OHMSS they made DAF
2) Following FYEO they made OP
3) Following TWINE they made DAD

Every time you want to conclude that their decisions reflected a desire
to save the series by toning it down a bit, I could counter with an
example to indicate that their decisions reflected a desire to save the
series by hamming it up a bit.

>The direction they
> pursued immediately afterwards isn't all that important IMHO: the point
> for me is that once they'd made those more Flemingesque films, they'd
> set a benchmark to which they could always return.

And just as easily I could say that the over-the-top grandiose fantasy
adventures (YOLT, MR, DAD) set a benchmark to which they could always
return.

My real point is, that I don't believe either of the above two theories
is what really happened. My own belief is that each film was more or
less a knee-jerk reaction to the previous film and to the then-current
perception of what movie audiences would want to spend their money
seeing. Sometimes EON got it right and scored a hit (MR, for example)
and sometimes EON got it wrong and the box-office results indicated
that their offering didn't resonate with audiences at large (LTK, for
example). But a desire to "save the long-term future of the series"
being the motivator for any one film? I just don't buy it.

Mike
"What can I bring you from Holland, Moneypenny?"
"A diamond? In a ring?"
"Would you settle for a copy of 'Infant Transportation Safety' signed
by Britney Spears?
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283804 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 17:45
phil.gerrard1  
Mike wrote:

> But given the circumstantial evidence, I could just as easily make a
> case for exactly the opposite conclusion, Phil! The evidence to
> support your theory would be:
>
> 1) Following YOLT they made OHMSS
> 2) Following MR they made FYEO
> 3) Following TND they made TWINE
>
> But I could just as easily argue that after every film that was
> scaled-down/gritty/realistic/etc they made the decision that the series
> would be better off for the long-term as a light-hearted escapist
> tongue-in-cheek vehicle -- and that *these* were the shifts that they
> deemed would ensure the series' long-term survival. The evidence to
> support this theory would be:
>
> 1) Following OHMSS they made DAF
> 2) Following FYEO they made OP
> 3) Following TWINE they made DAD

Well, yeah, that's another way of putting it. However, it strikes me
that the general tendency has been for EON to make the films
successively bigger - from DN to YOLT, DAF to MR, TLD to DAD - and then
abruptly call a halt and more or less explicitly say 'we felt we went a
little too far: time to get back to basics'. By doing so, they've
often confounded audience expectations and I suspect knowingly taken
the risk of hurting themselves at the box-office, but it seems to have
been a sacrifice they've been willing to make.

> And just as easily I could say that the over-the-top grandiose fantasy
> adventures (YOLT, MR, DAD) set a benchmark to which they could always
> return.

Oh, yeah, and I hope it doesn't appear that I'm disputing that - the
two points define the parameters within which the Bond films can exist.

> My real point is, that I don't believe either of the above two theories
> is what really happened. My own belief is that each film was more or
> less a knee-jerk reaction to the previous film and to the then-current
> perception of what movie audiences would want to spend their money
> seeing. Sometimes EON got it right and scored a hit (MR, for example)
> and sometimes EON got it wrong and the box-office results indicated
> that their offering didn't resonate with audiences at large (LTK, for
> example). But a desire to "save the long-term future of the series"
> being the motivator for any one film? I just don't buy it.

Well, I think that deep down EON must have known that OHMSS, FYEO, and
now CR were gambles and that they risked losing a proportion of an
audience which had enjoyed the formula as before. (LTK is a slightly
different matter, because it's arguable that EON were trying to emulate
a type of action movie which was very popular at the time.) Certainly
the box-office successes of YOLT, MR, and DAD would make many movie
executives try to repeat what had gone before, on the old principle of
'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. While I don't think for a moment
that EON have ever made a film with the attitude 'screw what the
audience wants, we're going to do what we damn well please', I think
that on occasion they've at least tried to do something a little
different and been prepared to take the gamble that some of the
audience who'd liked the more over-the-top Bond films might not go
along with them.

> "What can I bring you from Holland, Moneypenny?"
> "A diamond? In a ring?"
> "Would you settle for a copy of 'Infant Transportation Safety' signed
> by Britney Spears?

LOL! And it's somehow fitting that the best Britney joke I've seen
lately came from you, Mike.

Best

Phil
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283807 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 19:41
Eric Grayson  
In article <4f24kbF1gofrnU1 [at] individual.net>, Mac
<see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote:

> Eric Grayson wrote:
>
> > The Pink Panther made $80 million at the box office, which cleared its
> > cost there. It's considered a hit. Anything it makes on the DVDs is
> > pure profit (beyond the cost of the DVDs themselves).
>
> The PINK PANTHER cost $80m to PRODUCE. Factor in the print and
> advertising, there's no profit there. Couple this with its ho-hum
> international take of $78m (should always be greater than US) and
> it will be up to DVD, TV, etc. to see the film make a significant profit.

I'm told that was the entire cost including print runs.

The rule-of-thumb is that DVD sales will equal or surpass the take at
the box office, so that gives us $160 mil. Cable maybe another $20.

It made money.

Eric
Re: Sony and MGM split [message #283808 ] Di, 13 Juni 2006 20:51
Mac  
Eric Grayson wrote:


>>> The Pink Panther made $80 million at the box office, which cleared
>>> its cost there. It's considered a hit. Anything it makes on the
>>> DVDs is pure profit (beyond the cost of the DVDs themselves).
>>
>> The PINK PANTHER cost $80m to PRODUCE. Factor in the print and
>> advertising, there's no profit there. Couple this with its ho-hum
>> international take of $78m (should always be greater than US) and
>> it will be up to DVD, TV, etc. to see the film make a significant
>> profit.
>
> I'm told that was the entire cost including print runs.

Production budget. This is also before gross profit participation points
and whatnot.

> The rule-of-thumb is that DVD sales will equal or surpass the take at
> the box office, so that gives us $160 mil. Cable maybe another $20.
>
> It made money.

It *will* turn a profit. Distinction. How much is returned to the studio
is another question. Actors negotiate for a considerable slice of the
DVD sales these days and it's a certainty Steve Martin did before he
signed on the dotted line. Especially for a film that had a spotty
history of losing leads in negotiations.
--
-- Mac
Vorheriges Thema:New Daniel Craig James Bond promo photo
Nächstes Thema:John Cleese said Eon didn't have the courtesy to telephone him about not being in CR
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:46:10 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06973 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered