No Time To Die | October 8 2021 | 82% on RT | RIP Sean Connery

[Jonwo]

Just now, Barnack said:

Don't have a domestic distributor picked either I think, I would imagine they will have the door open to any option.

MGM and Annapurna are distributing it domestically IIRC. 

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

MGM and Annapurna are distributing it domestically IIRC. 

 

They clearly stated in interviews that the deal did not include Bond and that they would explore option to see if they would go with MGM or if someone would want WW distribution that the option was open, I do not think it ever went officially to them.

 

[grim22]

This is interesting https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/mgm-using-james-bond-rights-as-leverage-a-sale-1099472

 

Quote

Many observers assumed that Megan Ellison's Annapurna had long ago locked up a domestic rights deal to the mega-franchise, but insiders say that is not the case. Neither domestic nor international rights (where Warners' Kevin Tsujihara is said to be the frontrunner) have been closed, leaving a question mark with only 19 months till the Nov. 8, 2019, release.

 

[antovolk]

two things

1. Reddit but here goes - Jolie apparently being courted for the main villain, and Lily James and a few lesser known names in the running as the junior agent Bond trains up in the film https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/8hnxai/angelina_jolie_to_play_the_villain/ (essentially backdoor piloting female 007, as this is being described as Craig's version of Logan)
2. Craig was paid $25 million to return one last time http://variety.com/2018/film/news/celebrity-salaries-daniel-craig-jennifer-lawrence-leonardo-dicaprio-1202801717/

[Barnack]

Considering he is also getting part of the merchandise money (for what Bond use/wear), that could rack up to a nice amount even before the participation bonus.

[The Futurist]

5 hours ago, Barnack said:

Considering he is also getting part of the merchandise money (for what Bond use/wear), that could rack up to a nice amount even before the participation bonus.

The BOnd families are famous for not giving any participation/bonus points to Bond actors.

[dudalb]

5 hours ago, Barnack said:

Considering he is also getting part of the merchandise money (for what Bond use/wear), that could rack up to a nice amount even before the participation bonus.

Where did you read that?

It would be a huge first for Eon;they have never given an actor a taste of the merchandising money.

They consider doing those jobs as a part of publicizing a Bond movie, and is included in the up front money they pay an actor.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Where did you read that?

It would be a huge first for Eon;they have never given an actor a taste of the merchandising money

In the Sony leaked email, a 5 million cash / 50 million ads for a product placement, I think cellphone (samsung was battling Sony for it), they had to deal with Craig for it. Will try to find it.

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

The BOnd families are famous for not giving any participation/bonus points to Bond actors.

 

There it is

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/93796

I will call you Monday morning your time, but here are my thoughts.  Legally EON is required to negotiate with us first and is not permitted to take offers from any other party.  I believe that the Samsung offer was unsolicited but cannot be certain of this.  My understanding is that the electronics company had already had monies budgeted to pay for some sort of fee in the range of $5mm with about $1mm going to Daniel Craig. 
 

They also mentioned in some others e-mail that they would have to deal with Craig regarding the cash part of a placement deal in some other e-mail previously.

 

Participation bonus were less prevalent before than now at the beginning of the franchise, when he resigned it would really surprise me if there would be really 0 form of participation bonus.

 

[grim22]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

In the Sony leaked email, a 5 million cash / 50 million ads for a product placement, I think cellphone (samsung was battling Sony for it), they had to deal with Craig for it. Will try to find it.

 

There it is

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/93796

I will call you Monday morning your time, but here are my thoughts.  Legally EON is required to negotiate with us first and is not permitted to take offers from any other party.  I believe that the Samsung offer was unsolicited but cannot be certain of this.  My understanding is that the electronics company had already had monies budgeted to pay for some sort of fee in the range of $5mm with about $1mm going to Daniel Craig. 
 

They also mentioned in some others e-mail that they would have to deal with Craig regarding the cash part of a placement deal in some other e-mail previously.

 

Participation bonus were less prevalent before than now at the beginning of the franchise, when he resigned it would really surprise me if there would be really 0 form of participation bonus.

 

EON will never let the actor have a participation bonus. They will pay a lot upfront but the property is too big for them to offer participation.

[Barnack]

41 minutes ago, grim22 said:

EON will never let the actor have a participation bonus. They will pay a lot upfront but the property is too big for them to offer participation.

I could not be certain has for creative share were MGM administration and not discussed much, but

 

According to the sony leaked sensitivities for Bond 24 at 770m worldwide, looking at the movie accounting if they would have been the only player but without merchandising, they would have paid 72m in creative share.

 

On skyfall at 1,106,000 WW they were giving 0) 152.69m.

 

Do not know the breakdown among the writers, producer, actors and so on... but I would be quite surprised if they didn't all get some like pretty much everyone do specially when signing on sequels.

 

Also not sure how we would know more than from what we can find in the leaks, those information tend to be private and unknown, and unlike for production cost much less people know about them, no need to insure them, no need to summit that info in tax credit form and so on. Paying a lot upfront seem cash flow intruisive for little reason (specially for the amount a Craig 100% free agent coming back for more movies should fetch, we are not talking 25-30m here..... much much more than that).

 

And the net budget on those movies does not seem to reflect a specially high in advance no back end type of deal.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Barnack

[TalismanRing]

46 minutes ago, grim22 said:

EON will never let the actor have a participation bonus. They will pay a lot upfront but the property is too big for them to offer participation.

 Connery in Diamonds Are Forever was the lone instance - and that was very special circumstances.

[Thrylos 7]

Meh, is still can’t figure out where the Craig era went to shit. It started with a bang with casino royal promising a return to glory days and then we got disappointment after disappointment with spectre being the last straw , where they basically ruined the big return of spectre and blofeld to the franchise.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thrylos 7

[RandomCat]

11 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 Connery in Diamonds Are Forever was the lone instance - and that was very special circumstances.

And a very good reason never to do it again. Diamonds Are Forever is just so...weird and out of place. And the fact that it brushes aside HMSS, I often just rather skip it and go to Live and Let Die. Which is weird, and kind of racist, but it's still entertaining.

[TalismanRing]

14 minutes ago, RandomCat said:

And a very good reason never to do it again. Diamonds Are Forever is just so...weird and out of place. And the fact that it brushes aside HMSS, I often just rather skip it and go to Live and Let Die. Which is weird, and kind of racist, but it's still entertaining.

Even though it's become a hardcore fan favorite OHMSS was not a big financial success for them.  Domestically it did half of what You Only Live Twice did.  At that point it was necessary for them financially in terms of series survival. Diamonds brought them back up to YOLT levels domestically  that would not be reached again until Moonraker.

 

You Only Live Twice UA $43,084,787 - n/a - 6/13/67

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

UA

$22,774,493

-

n/a

-

12/18/69

Diamonds Are Forever

UA

$43,819,547

-

n/a

-

12/17/71

45+ years and domestically only 4 Bond films after it have sold more tickets domestically

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

 

 

[Thrylos 7]

16 minutes ago, RandomCat said:

And a very good reason never to do it again. Diamonds Are Forever is just so...weird and out of place. And the fact that it brushes aside HMSS, I often just rather skip it and go to Live and Let Die. Which is weird, and kind of racist, but it's still entertaining.

How is live and let die racist ? If nothing else it relied on the boom of the blaxploitation genre in the early seventies that saw many black actors becoming leading men , something unheard of in the sixties. Because the villain is black ? I am sure yaphet kotto doesn’t find live and let die racist at all and it was actually a big breakthrough to have a black actor being the co-star of a bond movie.

[RandomCat]

1 minute ago, TalismanRing said:

Even though it's become a hardcore fan favorite OHMSS was not a big financial success for them.  Domestically it did half of what You Only Live Twice did.  At that point it was necessary for them financially in terms of series survival. Diamonds brought them back up to YOLT levels domestically  that would not be reached again until Moonraker.

 

You Only Live Twice UA $43,084,787 - n/a - 6/13/67

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

UA

$22,774,493

-

n/a

-

12/18/69

Diamonds Are Forever

UA

$43,819,547

-

n/a

-

12/17/71

45+ years and domestically only 4 Bond films after it have sold more tickets domestically

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

 

 

They didn't fire Lazenby though, he declined to do another one, because of his hippy agent. They were screwed from all angles, I get why Diamonds are Forever exists. But it's still really bad. And it's awkward, and they seriously probably could have just been better off pretending OHMSS didn't happen, cast Roger Moore and move on. (Even though Moore was busy with other things.)

 

Point is, Diamonds Are Forever is weird, and bad, and I forget it exists, a lot. I have better memory of the Dalton Movies.

[Thrylos 7]

4 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Even though it's become a hardcore fan favorite OHMSS was not a big financial success for them.  Domestically it did half of what You Only Live Twice did.  At that point it was necessary for them financially in terms of series survival. Diamonds brought them back up to YOLT levels domestically  that would not be reached again until Moonraker.

 

You Only Live Twice UA $43,084,787 - n/a - 6/13/67

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

UA

$22,774,493

-

n/a

-

12/18/69

Diamonds Are Forever

UA

$43,819,547

-

n/a

-

12/17/71

45+ years and domestically only 4 Bond films after it have sold more tickets domestically

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

 

 

OHMSS was the n.2 film worldwide in 1969 after butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid. It was lazenby that made the decision to leave the franchise , he wasn’t fired. Truth be told it was the last hurrah of the classic bond films, and an amazing last film for classic bond. Classic bond had no place in the seventies and wouldn’t have survived without Roger Moore and the changes he brought to the character as silly as they might seem nowadays.

[Jessie]

6 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

How is live and let die racist ? If nothing else it relied on the boom of the blaxploitation genre in the early seventies that saw many black actors becoming leading men , something unheard of in the sixties. Because the villain is black ? I am sure yaphet kotto doesn’t find live and let die racist at all and it was actually a big breakthrough to have a black actor being the co-star of a bond movie.

Too many snowflakes these days

[RandomCat]

32 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

How is live and let die racist ? If nothing else it relied on the boom of the blaxploitation genre in the early seventies that saw many black actors becoming leading men , something unheard of in the sixties. Because the villain is black ? I am sure yaphet kotto doesn’t find live and let die racist at all and it was actually a big breakthrough to have a black actor being the co-star of a bond movie.

Like super defensive dude, calm down. It borrowed the tropes and stereo types of Blaxploitation, without actually getting any of the deeper meanings from those tropes. Outside of Quarral Jr, who has a pre-existing relationship with Bond, every Black Person in the movie is a villain. None are portrayed as on the good side. Even Rosie Carver is a double agent. The fact that is horribly misrepresents black culture. Just because you cast a black actors in leading roles, doesn't mean your movie isn't racist.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by RandomCat

[RandomCat]

25 minutes ago, Jessie said:

Too many snowflakes these days

 The Irony.