CommanderBond.net

Now on the CBn main page...

MGM To Take James Bond Back From Sony?

Plus, reported new salary deal for Daniel Craig as 007

Minor bit of Bond-related news in this interesting article from the Hollywood Reporter...

Sony, MGM, and the James Bond franchise

...

Meanwhile, Sony, which released 2006's "Casino Royale" to roughly $167 million at the boxoffice, would love the rights to the James Bond franchise, though MGM is unlikely ever to let them go. As it stands, Sony has the right to distribute the upcoming Bond film theatrically, with MGM set to handle the film's release on cable and home entertainment.

"On the next Bond film, Sony is a 50-50 financier with MGM," says one source familiar with the arrangement. "But, according to their deal, in five years, MGM can buy Sony's 50% back. That was true on 'Casino Royale,' too: They can buy Sony's half back in five years, and there's plenty of TV and DVD money in those movies."

Indeed, MGM holds the rights to all future outings, and the resurrected studio is equally determined to make the most of Bond. Executives recently renegotiated the company's deal with star Daniel Craig to continue as 007, significantly upping his salary though declining to give him a share of back-end.

...

http://commanderbond.net/components/quickn...&item=41873 - The Hollywood Reporter

LOL - this stuff is impossible to keep on top of. Sounds like MGM still has a significant slice of the pie.

And renegotiating with DC - adding more movies to his contract or just upping his pay cheque?

I hate all the corporate .

Indeed, my question as well...

They wouldn't just give him a salary increase out of the goodness of their hearts. This wouldn't be happening if they knew that Craig had a limited shelf life in the part. They're paying Craig for an extended commitment to the role of James Bond. It's a remarkable vote of confidence, and I applaud them for it. And, by the way, I applaud Craig as well.

I agree. I actually try to follow this stuff & I can't keep up with it.

It does seem like there is something new each time.

I hope that this is the case and that they've signed Craig for more Bond films than the original three that he was supposed to be doing. He's truly a fantastic actor who is very much on the rise in Hollywood, and not to mention he is, IMO, the best James Bond to date. Hopefully, if they decide to (or already have) give him an extension, it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of the number of films that Connery and Moore had in their tenures.

I'd guess that at most they've signed him for another option of some sort, but I'm willing to be surprised.

Once we all thought the world was flat. That proved to be only partially true. (Nebraska, is in fact, flat.)

Shortly after, we all thought that Sony had purchased 100% ownership of Bond leaving MGM with diddly. Wrong again.

Do we all still think that Craig has no more and no less than a 3 year contract as Bond?

What's amusing is the certainy with which opinions are expressed. We read in the most emphatic terms that Craig will only do 2 films, three tops...that Paul Haggis did no more than 'tweak' the dialogue for CR...that Eon will never do this or do that...

"Nobody knows anything."
--William Goldman--

Even more amusing are the claims that this is how Craig's contract with EON reads, verbatim.

I've been soured to SONY with their handling of the DVD release of Casino Royale and I'm actually kind of hoping that MGM does eventually buy back SONY's 50% stake in Bond. To SONY Bond is just one more spoke in a very big wheel. Just another product to push. To MGM however it's the crown jewel of the studio and a point of pride. I feel that MGM will take better care of the franchise then SONY, who I fear will want more creative control as time goes on. I worry about Bond becoming too corporate under SONY ownership.