No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

19509519539559561214

Comments

  • edited October 2020 Posts: 351
    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

    However, it's also worth noting (and he even acknowledges this) that such a deal would have a huge amount of kinks that would need to be ironed out vis-à-vis MGM/Universal/EON's percentages and any legal issues relating to international rights and no decisions have been made.
  • Posts: 587
    It’s happening. It’s happening. It’s happening.
  • Posts: 1,407
    mtm wrote: »
    Stark wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but movies shot in IMAX on Apple TV and Netflix don't change their aspect ratio for Imax scenes like the Bluray does. For me that would ruin the experience. I'll wait to see it in Imax or Bluray.

    I don’t think that’s right: I’m sure I watched Fallout on Netflix a few months ago and the aspect ratio changes were kept intact. The change for the skydiving sequence is fantastic.

    The gradual slow change that Fallout does is fantastic and every film should do it
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 217
    Apple played the Bond theme presenting one of their new iPhones last week. Just saying.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,748
    At this point, I hope it happens. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see NTTD in a theater, but not if they keep delaying it over and over again. I just want to see the movie, theater or not.
  • edited October 2020 Posts: 3,133

    "MGM declined to comment on any talks, but said the film “is not for sale.”"
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    At this point, I hope it happens. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see NTTD in a theater, but not if they keep delaying it over and over again. I just want to see the movie, theater or not.

    Agreed.

    As long as it makes sufficient money to get the next film made, I don’t see the problem. Get the cash in to get all business going and investments continuing.

    Hopefully it’ll be on Netflix if the rumours are true. Does anyone even watch Appletv??
  • edited October 2020 Posts: 186
    antovolk wrote: »

    "MGM declined to comment on any talks, but said the film “is not for sale.”"

    Then they are idiots. If they passed on anything upwards of 500 mil considering cases are skyrocketing and April is not a guarantee, they will be hemorrhaging more money. There is no way any movie in the next year or so gets even close to 1 billion, let alone anywhere near what Spectre made. This kind of deal is how they survive and make a profit rather than a subpar ghost town release and not make a profit.

    They need to pull their heads out of their behinds and adapt with the circumstances. At least for the time being, the majority don't want to risk a theater experience. It sucks but thats the reality. And its better than sitting on a finished film for years. Its already a joke that they are about to match the longest length of time between Bond films.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2020 Posts: 3,465
    antovolk wrote: »

    "MGM declined to comment on any talks, but said the film “is not for sale.”"

    Of course it’s “officially” not for sale, they’re inbetween negotiations.
    It’s happening. It’s happening. It’s happening.

    I’m starting to believe so. 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...

    If it won’t happen it’s mainly because of Barbara, I suppose.
  • edited October 2020 Posts: 2,404
    Stark wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but movies shot in IMAX on Apple TV and Netflix don't change their aspect ratio for Imax scenes like the Bluray does. For me that would ruin the experience. I'll wait to see it in Imax or Bluray.

    First Man does on Netflix. Also bear in mind that neither Skyfall or Spectre were presented on Blu-ray with shifting aspect ratios.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,748
    antovolk wrote: »

    "MGM declined to comment on any talks, but said the film “is not for sale.”"

    Unbelievable.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,465
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »

    "MGM declined to comment on any talks, but said the film “is not for sale.”"

    Unbelievable.

    The fact that they still haven’t closed such an indispensable deal or the idea that NTTD will likely come out on Netflix or Apple Plus?
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 141
    mtm wrote: »
    Stark wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but movies shot in IMAX on Apple TV and Netflix don't change their aspect ratio for Imax scenes like the Bluray does. For me that would ruin the experience. I'll wait to see it in Imax or Bluray.

    I don’t think that’s right: I’m sure I watched Fallout on Netflix a few months ago and the aspect ratio changes were kept intact. The change for the skydiving sequence is fantastic.

    We don't have Fallout on Netflix in France but for the films available shot in Imax (like Dunkirk, Interstellar ...) the aspect ratio doesn't change.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I think they'll go through with it. These talks don't just make news without substance. That comment by MGM is just a throwaway line.
  • Posts: 5,655
    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: 559
    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: 5,655
    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: 3,465
    Univex wrote: »
    Not taking that deal will be pure idiocy and denial.

    At this point, within the current situation, yes!
  • Posts: 5,655
    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: 559
    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: 3,465
    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: 6,062
    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: 569
    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: 3,465
    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: 3,465
    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: 569
    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: 3,133
    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: 5,655
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.