No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

19479489509529531213

Comments

  • Posts: 5,728
    Not taking that deal will be pure idiocy and denial.
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s a win win situation. They could even re-release the film in 2022 for the 60th Anniversary once the one year deal expires...

    Exactly!
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 574
    I really hope it happens and I'm starting to think it will.
    Money talks at the best of times. Obviously a deal like this wouldn't even be suggested in the best of times, but these aren't, they are the worst in living memory for not only the industry but also the potential audiences that feed the industry. So in the case, money shouts, very loudly.
    I suggested ages ago that they could stream NTTD and then give it a cinema release later on, combined it would do decent box office. That was with the caveat that EON/MGM would be taking the financial risk. However if they sell it, securing their money and let Netflix take the risk then all bets are off.
    It is a win win and although I love the cinematic experience, the royal premiere, the anticipation etc etc I can fore go that this year to see a new Bond film for the first time in 5+ calendar years.
  • Posts: 5,728
    cwl007 wrote: »
    I really hope it happens and I'm starting to think it will.
    Money talks at the best of times. Obviously a deal like this wouldn't even be suggested in the best of times, but these aren't, they are the worst in living memory for not only the industry but also the potential audiences that feed the industry. So in the case, money shouts, very loudly.
    I suggested ages ago that they could stream NTTD and then give it a cinema release later on, combined it would do decent box office. That was with the caveat that EON/MGM would be taking the financial risk. However if they sell it, securing their money and let Netflix take the risk then all bets are off.
    It is a win win and although I love the cinematic experience, the royal premiere, the anticipation etc etc I can fore go that this year to see a new Bond film for the first time in 5+ calendar years.

    My feelings exactly, @cwl007.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,822
    Univex wrote: »
    Not taking that deal will be pure idiocy and denial.

    At this point, within the current situation, yes!
  • Posts: 5,728
    matt_u wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Not taking that deal will be pure idiocy and denial.

    At this point, within the current situation, yes!

    I've been Barbara's biggest fan and vocal supporter for as long as I can remember, but if this boils down to her stomping her high heel on the ground and saying no to this deal, I'll have to call her an entitled brat in denial. Not wanting to do this, in any form, I'll reserve judgement, there are just too many pieces moving on this particular board, and I don't believe this decision will come down to the producer. They'll have to adapt, as all of us will. I'm tired of listening to men and women of power in denial, saying they can't close their countries and economies. The bigger clearer picture has to do with health and survival, not with agendas and personal beliefs.

    I hope they take the deal. I really do.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 574
    There is another very reassuring positive aspect to this too if it is all true.
    If the big players in the streaming world are willing to pay colossal sums of money to buy 1 Bond film it shows our man is not only still very relevant but is still a huge currency going forward into Bond 26,27... The future of the franchise looks brighter all of a sudden. (If true!)
  • From Drew McWeeny, who initially reported the rumour on Twitter yesterday.

    "When Apple TV+ comes to the table with a $600 million check (one of the numbers I’ve heard is actually higher than that) for a one-year exclusive window on a film, that’s a number that you have to pay attention to, no matter what your history and no matter how much you cherish the theatrical experience."

    "This is the big one for MGM. This movie is make or break for a studio that has basically been playing a financial shell game for years. It’s amazing that MGM has the legacy it does considering how long it has been limping along as a barely-functioning production entity."

    "When your last film in the franchise made just over $800 million worldwide, and someone’s offering you almost that much for a single streaming window? That’s a conversation you have."

    https://drewmcweeny.substack.com/p/could-james-bond-really-die-at-home

    It's tough to disagree with that, isn't it?

    To play devil's advocate: let's imagine that by the spring time, we either have reliable treatment/vaccine, or the virus ebbs away like, say, SARS did.

    In that case, if EON still had a new movie in the can and were first in line for the reopening cinemas, they could stand to make an absolute killing - the pent-up demand for a blockbuster cinema experience, worldwide, would be staggering. Way more than $600 million, in any case.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2020 Posts: 3,822
    Univex wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Not taking that deal will be pure idiocy and denial.

    At this point, within the current situation, yes!

    I've been Barbara's biggest fan and vocal supporter for as long as I can remember, but if this boils down to her stomping her high heel on the ground and saying no to this deal, I'll have to call her an entitled brat in denial. Not wanting to do this, in any form, I'll reserve judgement, there are just too many pieces moving on this particular board, and I don't believe this decision will come down to the producer. They'll have to adapt, as all of us will. I'm tired of listening to men and women of power in denial, saying they can't close their countries and economies. The bigger clearer picture has to do with health and survival, not with agendas and personal beliefs.

    I hope they take the deal. I really do.

    +1. Yes, me too.

    At this point I think it will happen. NTTD would need an impossible $2 billions boxoffice run in order to make such a profit. $600/$700 millions for just a 1 year rights deal is a ridicolous amount of money.
    octofinger wrote: »
    Way more than $600 million, in any case.

    What..? Nope.

    SP costed like NTTD, had a BO run of $880 millions and the studio net profit ended up being $98.40 millions.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,148
    A vaccine seems to be close; that would be a game changer. EON is still in a position to see what develops over the next few months.
    We here are gnawing at the bit to see this film, but we are a sliver of the potential audience. If a viable vaccine is made available; theaters will be packed in April; people are ready to get out and about.

    Now, with that said, if things still appear bleak in the spring, then it’s time to reevaluate.
  • Posts: 605
    You forget all the other big movies.

    Most if not all of them wrapped shooting even before Bond did one year ago.
    And almost every Big-Budget-Production is still planned for a theatrical release.

    Why should Bond go to streaming, but "Top Gun", "Fast & Furious" and Co. get a theatrical release?
    From an outside point of view it would make Bond look extremly tiny. No Direct-to-VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray-Release, no VOD-Release ever became a movie classic. No movie, that is released online will ever be thought of as big as movies, that became theatre hits.

    THAT's why Bond HAS to get an exclusive theatrical release all around the world.

    NO audience member, no fan needs to see NTTD as soon as possible. From our point of view they can keep it in the closet until 2022 - or as long as it would take to have a worldwide theatrical hit.

    And IF Apple and Co. buy MGM, there should still be the deal, that NTTD has to have a theatrical release several months prior to the Streaming-release.
  • edited October 2020 Posts: 784
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    You forget all the other big movies.

    Most if not all of them wrapped shooting even before Bond did one year ago.
    And almost every Big-Budget-Production is still planned for a theatrical release.

    Well, I'm not sure we forgot them. Those other projects will be having similar conversations to the ones EON are having; I promise that Disney is starting to look hard at streaming options for its Marvel products, for instance.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,822
    It's basically confirmed that healthy/young/relatively young people may have to wait until 2022 to be vaccinated. Point is $600/700 millions is an insane amount of money, for just a one year deal. SP profit was less than $100 millions, they already lost $50 millions on marketing and accepting those mammoth offers from Apple and Netflix also means that they won't even have to divide the incomes with cinemas.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,822
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    Why should Bond go to streaming, but "Top Gun", "Fast & Furious" and Co. get a theatrical release?

    Because MGM is not a corporation like Paramount and Universal (or WB and Disney obviously).
  • Posts: 605
    matt_u wrote: »
    It's basically confirmed that healthy/young/relatively young people may have to wait until 2022 to be vaccinated. Point is $600/700 millions is an insane amount of money, for just a one year deal. SP profit was less than $100 millions, they already lost $50 millions on marketing and accepting those mammoth offers from Apple and Netflix also means that they won't even have to divide the incomes with cinemas.

    Yes, from a financial point of view, getting $700 million, making a huge profit, and having nothing more to take care of is one hell of an offer.

    But this should not be just about the financial side of the topic.

    It has to do with Bond legacy.
    In my eyes Bond would not be worth what it is now, if they premiere the movie on a streaming platform. And that's something you have to think of concerning long-term-success of the brand.

    The release of a Bondfilm has to be a huge social event, millions of people coming together to watch it at the cinema.
    So my view on this is: don't release it until that is possible in most countries.
    I know: it might be nostalgic. But that's what it is to me.
  • edited October 2020 Posts: 3,151
    Remember that for Apple/Netflix/Amazon, they’re happy to have cinemas play their films, even as much as 3-4 weeks before release on their respective platforms. A cinema release will still almost definitely happen I’d say. Just that the major chains will of course refuse and pour even more venom than they did after the latest delay. And if a deal goes through Barbara will definitely want the Scorsese/Irishman treatment for NTTD.
  • Posts: 5,728
    antovolk wrote: »
    Remember that for Apple/Netflix/Amazon, they’re happy to have cinemas play their films, even as much as 3-4 weeks before release on their respective platforms. A cinema release will still almost definitely happen I’d say. Just that the major chains will of course refuse and pour even more venom than they did after the latest delay. And if a deal goes through Barbara will definitely want the Scorsese/Irishman treatment for NTTD.

    There's no one, and I mean no one, who loves and has done more for cinema than Scorsese. And his name is a premium brand in show business. And even he adapted and embraced what must be embraced for survival sake.
  • Posts: 605
    antovolk wrote: »
    Remember that for Apple/Netflix/Amazon, they’re happy to have cinemas play their films, even as much as 3-4 weeks before release on their respective platforms. A cinema release will still almost definitely happen I’d say. Just that the major chains will of course refuse and pour even more venom than they did after the latest delay. And if a deal goes through Barbara will definitely want the Scorsese/Irishman treatment for NTTD.

    I know.

    I saw "On The Rocks" (by Sodia Coppola with Bill Murray) in the theatre on Oct 2nd.
    Since yesterday it is availabe on Apple TV+.
    So this movie only had a three week theatrical window, and everyone knew, that it would be available online after three weeks.

    It's impossible to generate a theatrical hit if people know, that the movie will be available online after only 3 weeks. So in ordner to have a good boxoffice the window for Bond has to be longer than 3 weeks, and the online release date should not be communicated beforehand.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited October 2020 Posts: 1,756
    At some point, filmmakers need to realise that the cinema experience is much harder to attain now. And it's a shame, really, going to watch a film on the big screen truly sets you in a different world for a while. But there's nothing wrong with watching a film at home. It makes your work immediately accessible.

    This way of showing films was just a matter of circumstance. We now have the tech to stream and watch movies at home, something that was not possible not too long ago.

    Some may argue that this is what makes going to a movie theater special. I think it is. But I think post-COVID, I could see a situation where theaters are a bit more niche. However I have no idea how long it will take to get the population comfortable enough to rush to the theater with zero worries again. My guess is at least a year after a successful vaccine.

    If MGM/whoever really thinks that theaters, by April, will be like pre-COVID, or close to it, are in denial.

    Take the deal. It's a profit. Get cracking on another Bond film while you're obligated to stay at home and not be out in the field creating films.
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Remember that for Apple/Netflix/Amazon, they’re happy to have cinemas play their films, even as much as 3-4 weeks before release on their respective platforms. A cinema release will still almost definitely happen I’d say. Just that the major chains will of course refuse and pour even more venom than they did after the latest delay. And if a deal goes through Barbara will definitely want the Scorsese/Irishman treatment for NTTD.

    I know.

    I saw "On The Rocks" (by Sodia Coppola with Bill Murray) in the theatre on Oct 2nd.
    Since yesterday it is availabe on Apple TV+.
    So this movie only had a three week theatrical window, and everyone knew, that it would be available online after three weeks.

    It's impossible to generate a theatrical hit if people know, that the movie will be available online after only 3 weeks. So in ordner to have a good boxoffice the window for Bond has to be longer than 3 weeks, and the online release date should not be communicated beforehand.

    If your reasoning is true, then you have to conclude that the main appeal of theaters is exclusivity.

    In a scenario where a movie premieres at a theater and on streaming at the same time, I think most people won't even bother to go. If a title at the theater is driven on exclusivity, then an exclusive on streaming would be just as profitable.

  • Posts: 3,151
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Remember that for Apple/Netflix/Amazon, they’re happy to have cinemas play their films, even as much as 3-4 weeks before release on their respective platforms. A cinema release will still almost definitely happen I’d say. Just that the major chains will of course refuse and pour even more venom than they did after the latest delay. And if a deal goes through Barbara will definitely want the Scorsese/Irishman treatment for NTTD.

    I know.

    I saw "On The Rocks" (by Sodia Coppola with Bill Murray) in the theatre on Oct 2nd.
    Since yesterday it is availabe on Apple TV+.
    So this movie only had a three week theatrical window, and everyone knew, that it would be available online after three weeks.

    It's impossible to generate a theatrical hit if people know, that the movie will be available online after only 3 weeks. So in ordner to have a good boxoffice the window for Bond has to be longer than 3 weeks, and the online release date should not be communicated beforehand.

    But does it *need* to be a theatrical hit? As soon as this goes to a streamer, the definition of "hit" changes entirely. The films Apple, Netflix and Amazon finance or acquire don't need to recoup with box office the way traditional distributors do. The business model becomes different entirely. As explained in the MI6 HQ article on this whole thing
    Routinely, platforms like Apple+ and Netflix will spend more on marketing to acquire a new customer than the revenue that customer brings in on their initial purchase. Once you have a customer into your eco-system, it is then all about maximizing their Total Customer Value (TCV) with products like subscriptions and additional purchases. This is the economic balancing act between CAC and TCV, and why companies will spend more to get a customer than they are initially worth. In short, Apple can drop $200m to get 'No Time To Die' for their platform, not recoup that money directly from PVOD sales, and still make money off the venture in the long term. Platforms like Apple+ and Netflix are also under pressure to report subscriber gains to Wall Street.

    For them, it doesn't matter what they're gonna be watching on ATV+ - No Time To Die or On The Rocks. As long as they're subscribed and still watching. Films like No Time To Die would be a massive marketing shop window to attract people to the service (and to also buy new Apple devices, which include a year's subscription).

    So with the financial side of things not requiring a theatrical hit, there's still, as I said, going to be an option for people to see it on the big screen. To have the communal experience should they so wish and if they believe it's safe to do so (we all have different circumstances and risk tolerance factors). If anything, having the film out in the home at the same time makes it even more of a shared communal event in this pandemic time. If people decide to skip the theatrical just because it'll be available on streaming in 3 weeks? People already do it anyway and are happy to wait 16.
  • Posts: 12,812
    Cinemas are a thing of the past: a bygone era.
    Watching movies on your phone while sitting in heavy traffic is the next big phase.
    Multitasking. It takes immense skill to concentrate on a riveting Bond epic while maneuvering on the express ways.
    I can't wait for NTTD to be streamed. This will be fun.
  • Posts: 3,151
    So, looks like $600m for global rights is what MGM (!) is asking for
  • Posts: 601
    We are seeing history unfold in front of our eyes laddies.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 12,067
    I would rather Bond have another delay, than go streaming. If Bond was pushed to November ‘21, I could wait.
  • Posts: 5,728
    I'm afraid the "I could wait" discourse is getting rather close to wishful thinking. Many people, by then, will have been unfortunate enough to have lost their lives. Bond fans, of course, included. This thing is here to stay for a while, and the possibility of pandemics is here to stay for good. We won't go easily back to our old ways, for fear, precaution, with hysterics or rationality. We'll have to adapt, whether we want to or not. And be intelligent about it.

    Can I wait? Well, I still have that capacity, as I'm a full blown genX. But I don't think waiting will be an option for many. I'll wait patiently, if I'm still around by then, for Bond26. As for Bond25, it's done, they have it in their hands, many of us who have been working non stop in the NHS, and have a daily contact with suffering and death, deserve a prize of some sort, and if there's the possibility of them making money on a streaming service, I have to defend that option with all I've got.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 12,067
    I am well aware of the toll this virus has taken, to put it mildly. Having had the virus myself, as well as losing both of my parents (my mum was a frontline worker for the NHS), within two days, gives on an intimate idea of the suffering and death that it can cause.
  • I am well aware of the toll this virus has taken, to put it mildly. Having had the virus myself, as well as losing both of my parents (my mum was a frontline worker for the NHS), within two days, gives on an intimate idea of the suffering and death that it can cause.

    I'm so sorry for your loss. I send you compassion and healing. 🙏🧡🙏
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 12,067
    I am well aware of the toll this virus has taken, to put it mildly. Having had the virus myself, as well as losing both of my parents (my mum was a frontline worker for the NHS), within two days, gives on an intimate idea of the suffering and death that it can cause.

    I'm so sorry for your loss. I send you compassion and healing. 🙏🧡🙏

    Thank you. I am lucky that I have family and friends around me, that I have been able to talk too. But... I still feel like I have been on auto pilot for the last 6 months.
  • I am well aware of the toll this virus has taken, to put it mildly. Having had the virus myself, as well as losing both of my parents (my mum was a frontline worker for the NHS), within two days, gives on an intimate idea of the suffering and death that it can cause.

    I'm so sorry for your loss. I send you compassion and healing. 🙏🧡🙏

    Thank you. I am lucky that I have family and friends around me, that I have been able to talk too. But... I still feel like I have been on auto pilot for the last 6 months.

    You're welcome. It's great that you have that support network. I lost my dad in July. I'm a frontline worker in psychiatric care. This year has been like an endurance test. I'd love a little light at the end of the tunnel. I'd love for No Time To Die to stream in the comfort of my own home. Stay safe.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,731
    I am well aware of the toll this virus has taken, to put it mildly. Having had the virus myself, as well as losing both of my parents (my mum was a frontline worker for the NHS), within two days, gives on an intimate idea of the suffering and death that it can cause.

    That's terrible news, so sorry to hear that.
  • Posts: 4,430
    One of the ellements in play is possibility of another delay. If you look at the negative PR that EON got from the last delay (and there must have been internal stress/arguments), is another delay really an option? It would taint the brand and drag it into farce. I think most consumers would realise and understand the exceptonal circumstances and NOT think that Bond had move permanantly to the small screen. The Brand has an enormous legacy and surely is strong enough for one single small screen release? - we need to move on IMHO .

Sign In or Register to comment.