[Futureguy]

With MGM now (officially) putting Bond on indefinite suspension due to their cash crisis, we may not see Bond or even any further Stargate derivatives for some time. Even when particular movies about Bond were not great, they were good entertainment, especially for marathon showings.

[martok2112]

Yikes!

[starbase63]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

With MGM now (officially) putting Bond on indefinite suspension due to their cash crisis, we may not see Bond or even any further Stargate derivatives for some time. Even when particular movies about Bond were not great, they were good entertainment, especially for marathon showings.

I guess MGM doesn't want to share Bond with another production company or companies?

Paramount shared Star Trek with Spyglass for the latest movie...

James Bond has always been a moneymaker for MGM/United Artists, it seems odd they'd shelf something that could help their difficulties.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by starbase63

I guess MGM doesn't want to share Bond with another production company or companies?

Paramount shared Star Trek with Spyglass for the latest movie...

James Bond has always been a moneymaker for MGM/United Artists, it seems odd they'd shelf something that could help their difficulties.

If MGM did go bust, who would be the most likely to buy such properties as "Bond" and "Stargate", if they were not selectively sold to another studio by MGM to raise money?

[Quark]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

With MGM now (officially) putting Bond on indefinite suspension due to their cash crisis, we may not see Bond or even any further Stargate derivatives for some time. Even when particular movies about Bond were not great, they were good entertainment, especially for marathon showings.

I don't think Daniel Craig is going to come back as 007 depending on how long this crisis takes place. Timothy Dalton was in the same situation when MGM and Eon had a disagreement that lasted six years. He stepped down and the role went to Pierce Brosnan.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by starbase63

I guess MGM doesn't want to share Bond with another production company or companies?

Paramount shared Star Trek with Spyglass for the latest movie...

James Bond has always been a moneymaker for MGM/United Artists, it seems odd they'd shelf something that could help their difficulties.

Their $4 Billion in debt - they seemingly don't have the money to put any projects in motion nor do they have anyone willing to give them the money to.

Plus, a James Bond film is these days an exorbitantly costly film (Quantum was reported to cost $200 million before promotion/advertising was spent on as well) to produce and would do very little to solve their issues on it's own. And at that kind of cost it's 2008 earnings of less than $600 million are unlikely to have made it profitable on it's theatrical run, though I have no idea what it earned on DVD/Blu-Ray etc.

The rights may have to transfer to get things going again.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

If MGM did go bust, who would be the most likely to buy such properties as "Bond" and "Stargate", if they were not selectively sold to another studio by MGM to raise money?

Likely the highest bidder, given how badly they need to fix themselves.

[martok2112]

If StarGate were given up, I'd venture that 20th Century Fox would buy it, simply based on the notion that some of the StarGate SG-1 and StarGate Atlantis DVD's were released through 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment as well as MGM.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

If StarGate were given up, I'd venture that 20th Century Fox would buy it, simply based on the notion that some of the StarGate SG-1 and StarGate Atlantis DVD's were released through 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment as well as MGM.

But would FOX getting their hands on a sci-fi franchise be a good thing though!

[Saquist]

This explains the state of the Stargate Empire.