James Bond Film 'No Time To Die' Explored $600 Million Sale To Streaming Services (variety.com) 87
Apple, Netflix and other streaming services explored the possibility of acquiring "No Time to Die," the upcoming James Bond movie that was originally slated to debut last April. From a report: The film's release has been postponed multiple times, with the Daniel Craig vehicle moving back to November before being pushed into 2021 as the number of coronavirus cases kept growing. MGM, the studio behind the film, reportedly lost between $30 million to $50 million due to the delays, insiders said. Bloomberg first reported the discussions, which have been the topic du jour in Hollywood this week. Other studios, such as Paramount and Sony, have raked in tens of millions by selling movies like "Greyhound," "Coming 2 America" and "Without Remorse" to streaming services while the exhibition sector continues to struggle during the pandemic.
However, multiple insiders at rival studios and companies said that a possible Bond sale was explored overtly, and believe that MGM was at least open to the possibility of unloading their crown jewel for a princely sum. The studio was said to be looking for a deal of roughly $600 million -- a price tag that was deemed too rich for two of the free-spending streaming services. A sale of this magnitude would be led exclusively by Kevin Ulrich, the chairman and CEO of MGM's majority owner Anchorage Capital Group, insiders said.
However, multiple insiders at rival studios and companies said that a possible Bond sale was explored overtly, and believe that MGM was at least open to the possibility of unloading their crown jewel for a princely sum. The studio was said to be looking for a deal of roughly $600 million -- a price tag that was deemed too rich for two of the free-spending streaming services. A sale of this magnitude would be led exclusively by Kevin Ulrich, the chairman and CEO of MGM's majority owner Anchorage Capital Group, insiders said.
no theatres left (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The theaters need take an stand and say We will not show movies unless we get an better cut of the gate!
Re: (Score:3)
The theaters need take an stand and say We will not show movies unless we get an better cut of the gate!
Do you even hear yourself? You're saying that they should refuse to make any money unless they get a larger percentage of the profits.
Do you think Hollywood is even going to care if they refuse to do business? There are so many other outlets for entertainment as shown by this very article.
Hollywood is traditional or rational? (Score:3)
Do you think Hollywood is even going to care if they refuse to do business? There are so many other outlets for entertainment as shown by this very article.
If they were rational, no, they would not care one bit. Is Hollywood rational? Not in my opinion. They are obsessed with tradition and awards and pageantry and especially reliving their youth. I think quite a few major names would be willing to do something less than rational in the name of keeping the tradition alive. Quite a few complained about Netflix being qualified for Oscars. I think movie theaters will be around for quite a bit longer than anyone will expect.
Re: (Score:3)
The theaters need take an stand and say We will not show movies unless we get an better cut of the gate!
That will just accelerate the shift to streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no theatres left (Score:4, Insightful)
The theaters need to focus more on experience than 'movie on big screen and big speakers with overpriced generic drinks, candy, and popcorn, and some ads on the screen'.
The home theater can now easily deliver on the big screen and sound, and can trivially have snacks and such that compete favorably. I see no point in going to an AMC/Carmike sort of generic theater experience.
However, a theater around me does peak my interest, with a lot of movie-appropriate pre-movie content on the screen, furniture that matches my home furniture, and waitstaff to provide actually passable food. It's expensive, but it's at least some motivation to bother to go see a movie instead of waiting to just play it on my 70" screen at home.
Re:no theatres left (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like you are staying home. Same as me. I stopped going to cinema a while back as the movies aren't worth the ticket price. You can buy the entire movie for $20 within 6 months of it's theatrical release.
The experience of going to the movies is terrible as well. They charge to much for concessions, ticket sales and I have to put up with the general public. The lines to everything suck too.
Movie cinemas are for young people that have to see everything NOW!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm staying home *now*, but I was still going to the nicer theater on occasion that did more than 'new movie on big screen'. It has to be a nice experience to augment the film rather than just bolted on addons that seek more revenue without being particularly relevant to the movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that what makes Alamo Drafthouse so popular?
I often think the problem is that most cinemas are stuck in this multiplex schedule where no matter how many amenities they provide, really, the experience begins and ends with the movie and there's not much opportunity or desire to hang around a multiplex. I have zero interest in paying $12 for a drink the multiplex hallway/bar annex.
Personally, I wonder if you could have a theater with seating for maybe 50-75 people where the whole experience was meant to
Re: (Score:1)
I will no go to theaters with wait staff. They interrupt the movie. If I wanted that, I'd go see the movie at a friend's house where they have pets or young children.
Re: (Score:2)
They handle it well. The auditorium is designed with crazy large aisles that are below the seats so they can walk around without being noticed. And everything is done through written order cards that are visibly placed so no one ever asks you anything.
Re: (Score:1)
Bugs the hell out of me. Lights turning on and off. People crawling around the floor. I want a large classic theater with good seats that's not crazy expensive. I had one pre-covid in my area. I hope it makes it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Sometimes I wonder if people can read graphs. Perhaps no one noticed, but the case levels in Europe countries right now are way higher than the US per capita. They are probably Trump voters over there who don't wear masks and go to Trump rallies.
Re: (Score:3)
They are probably Trump voters over there who don't wear masks and go to Trump rallies.
Lol, they have a narrative and they have to make everything they say fit it though. Don't burst their bubble.
Re: (Score:3)
No no no! you aren't listening. Europe is a golden civilization on a hill and we should all pay homage. USA is the worst of the worst. Terrible country I tell you. Everyone should leave asap, especially CA. Leave CA asap please.
Worst country on the planet. Why anyone would want to live work or rule here is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong. Europe does have much higher population density to deal with, and are much older on average, both of which make it harder.
Re: (Score:2)
But short of that, "flattening the curve" is also still a thing. Many hospitals in the US are very full right now. People are being shunted to other states for care. Depending on how bad this gets, the initial fears of inadequate treatment resulting in excess deaths could still happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on European country in question. UK people are well known for its use of spikes to get homeless to not sleep on their property before the coronavirus. Romania has a homeless/extreme poverty problem so big, it makes US look downright egalitarian, especially on the Roma end of the equation. And let's not even get to the poorest nation on the continent, Moldova.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(White House Chief of Staff yesterday: "We are not going to control the pandemic.")
That is an accurate quote. I am glad he was brave enough to make that statement. That is reality. The virus will eventually go through the populations (and that includes New Zealand, etc). You cannot hide from a virus forever. Only Sweden handled this correctly. We made it worse, not better. This should have been over a long time ago. People are looking for a magic solution, like a magic vaccine, or a shutdown that makes it magically disappear. Ironically they sound like Trump.
Given that Sweden basically culled the elderly with death panels during this pandemic by denying elderly coronavirus patients access to medical care to keep them from overwhelming their hospitals, your definition of "correctly" matches my definition of "mass murder".
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Sweden basically culled the elderly with death panels during this pandemic by denying elderly coronavirus patients access to medical care to keep them from overwhelming their hospitals, your definition of "correctly" matches my definition of "mass murder".
I'm curious from where you got this and what made you propagate the narrative above?
It's a genuine question just in case you see this. If you prefer, please free to message me directly. I wonder if you can e.g. trace it to something more substantial than opinion pieces or tabloids?
Note: I've not been able to trace it to anything reliable. There's circumstantial indications of individual instances where elderly incorrectly were not sent to a hospital, but unclear why. But last I checked even that was at "spe
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Sweden basically culled the elderly with death panels during this pandemic by denying elderly coronavirus patients access to medical care to keep them from overwhelming their hospitals, your definition of "correctly" matches my definition of "mass murder".
I'm curious from where you got this and what made you propagate the narrative above?
It's a genuine question just in case you see this. If you prefer, please free to message me directly. I wonder if you can e.g. trace it to something more substantial than opinion pieces or tabloids?
I can't remember where I found it originally, but here's a mention by the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com].
Note: I've not been able to trace it to anything reliable. There's circumstantial indications of individual instances where elderly incorrectly were not sent to a hospital, but unclear why. But last I checked even that was at "speculation stage". I've definitely not seen no evidence of "culling" nor "death panels".
I'm being deliberately hyperbolic with that wording, precisely because the folks on the right were being deliberately hyperbolic when claiming that guaranteeing medical care for all would result in death panels. I chose that wording to throw it back in their faces and say that no, it's right-wing policies that result in (effectively) death panels, not left-wing.
But the point remains that in Sweden, there are a lot
Summer 2021 (Score:1)
Here in the States, we have morons running around without masks. Morons who believe every conspiracy theory they see on social media and act accordingly. Morons who think mask wearing is liberal or some such nonsense. Morons who believe President CHeeto above medical professionals.
Morons who thought closing down hurt the economy more than sta
Re:Summer 2021 (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think Trump has a monopoly on being a dumbass politician, think again. There's dumbasses in every country and some of them are politicians too.
Re: (Score:2)
If the leader of your country is not willing to take action, not willing to implement steps that would slow down or stop the propagation of the virus, then yes they are directly and indirectly responsible for the number of COVID cases. It's not rocket science.
The U.S.A., Canada, the U.K., France, etc... all have poorly implemented and restrictions that are too weak. They're all acting as if the incubation period of this thing is only a few days with clear symptom signs when it can be up to two weeks and asy
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to be fair.
While the administration could be more positive about mask wearing and distancing, etc....
The Federal govt. can NOT directly tell states or citizens what to do.
The Federal govt does not have, in its limited Constitutionally prescri
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought the U.S.A. mirrored the Canadian federal/provincial structure, but it seems to me that the European Union is a closer comparison.
Your post explains a lot, thank you.
Re: (Score:1)
If you think Trump has a monopoly on being a dumbass politician, think again. There's dumbasses in every country and some of them are politicians too.
No, motherfucker I do not. But Trump is an outlier supported by a cult of morons that we have not seen for generations. So, fuck you and your things have been bad before idiocy rationalization. Trump is an asshole that NEEDS to go and all of his supporters are fucking assholes who need to be sidelined.
Re: (Score:3)
Projection is strong with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
The case levels in Europe countries right now are way higher than the US per capita. They are probably Trump voters over there who don't wear masks and go to Trump rallies, right? I guess it turns out that viruses don't care about who is President. Fuck you guys who politicize a virus.
I believe on 22 February Trump, speaking at a political rally in SC, said that the impact of COVID was a liberal hoax to try and unseat him. I don't recall it really ever being political until he refused to take it seriously and claimed that it was a hoax. So I hope you include fucking Trump for politicizing it and cast your vote accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the States, we have morons running around without masks.
And, apparently, "thoughtful, enlightened people" in government who order employees to wear masks during Zoom meetings from home.
Re: Summer 2021 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's ok. It's an outdated idea anyway, given that everyone has a means for watching movies at their own home now. Maybe a few will stick around at amusement parks or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Catching a cold or flu at a theater freaked me out even before covid came around. I can't imagine ever setting foot in a movie theater again.
Re:no theatres left (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. In a good year, a Bond film might be worth a billion dollars at the box office, but this isn't a good year, and—even if a vaccine becomes available at some point—next year won't be either as people slowly trickle back in. Asking for $600M in the middle of the pandemic is a bit rich, given that the film won't make nearly that much unless MGM sits on it for at least a year. Meanwhile, MGM is only selling one year of exclusivity, so whoever buys the rights would have to make that much back in a single year to make it worth the price.
From what I recall, Netflix is spending in the ballpark of $8-10B annually on content production/acquisition, so $600M would be a huge chunk of their budget, but likely wouldn't bring in anywhere close to that much in terms of new and returning subscribers. They have the numbers, they know how well the Bond films do in their back catalog, and they know how their subscriber numbers look when they get recent blockbuster releases. While there is doubtless a modest bump, Netflix has had a few, well-received action flicks in the last few months (e.g. The Old Guard and Extraction), so their customers are largely satisfied as they are. There's no need to shell out this much for something that would likely return so little.
Likewise for Amazon, which already leverages the rest of the Prime service to retain subscribers. While they need some decent content, they don't need to keep pumping out the hits like Netflix does because the "stickiness" of their subscription comes primarily from the inclusion of other products and services in the bundle, not their original video content. Whereas Netflix needs to pump out quality (for varying definitions of "quality") original content while maintaining a decent back catalog to retain subscribers, Amazon makes their subscription sticky by offering two-day shipping, discounts, and access to books/music. Prime Video is just a small part of the Prime bundle, so a Bond film is unlikely to justify its own cost (and yes, I know Prime Video is offered as a standalone service, but compared to the main Prime bundle, it's a drop in the bucket).
Apple has the most to gain because they have yet to land a smash hit (Greyhound definitely wasn't it), but they also have the least ability to capitalize on the situation because they have no stickiness. Even among their rabid fanbase, very few people on the free subscription plan have any intention of continuing once the free period ends in a few months. Apple's content up to now has been very on-brand, and until they let go of that idea and start pushing out more varied content, they'll be lucky if any given subscriber has even a single piece of content resonate with them, let alone the amount they'd need if they want to retain that customer. But even among the subscribers who resonated with something, the fact that everything in Apple TV+ is new, original content means there's no back catalog to watch while waiting for the sequel/second season to whatever got them in the door, and thus no reason to maintain the subscription. If Apple paid $600M for Bond right now, they may very well get a load of people in the door, but they'd have no way to retain them. It'd be the most expensive catch-and-release operation in history.
Re: (Score:3)
And with what has been reported as a "woke" Bond film this time around, there is likely a chance it wouldn't have made all THAT much money if it had come out on a normal release.
What about PPV say $19.99? $24.99? $29.99? (Score:3)
What about PPV say $19.99? $24.99? $29.99?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has become kind of formulaic how every Bond film must feature a woman saving Bond's life. It's like a box they just have to check.
Since Tatiana Romanova saves Bond's life in "From Russia with Love" in 1963, a woman has saved Bond's life in nearly every movie that followed.
Re:Are you insane? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bond himself is not longer a 00 agent but retired for several years. Black female takes his place as a 00 agent, but she's not the lead. Moneypenny is also a black female now of course. Word among the sites talking about those things is that this is the "transition film to full black female 007 to combat mysogyny and whiteness of Bond movies".
So "faggot ass woke bullshit" is actually pretty dead on as a description considering what we know about this new instalment to the franchise so far.
Re: (Score:2)
$29.99? You can't pay me enough to watch this faggot ass woke bullshit.
People are desperate and they'll sit through this crap I'm sure.
Then again, you could spend your money on a new game console and whatever games they have for them this season.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$29.99? You can't pay me enough to watch this faggot ass woke bullshit.
If you wouldn't watch a movie if they paid you to, what does it matter what they charge people who actually want to see it?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, however, I think I'm in a small minority of moviegoers overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! I'll just buy the movie, back it up to my hard drive and watch it on any screen I want. Also, it will last a lot longer then 24 hours. Also, I'll have a hard copy just in case. $29.99 for a movie? Not a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
$29.99 for a movie? Not a chance.
The target audience here are the ones who were willing to buy two $10-15 tickets for date night, or more if they watch it with kids or their friends, in the theaters before the movie is released for purchase. This is why the rental is so much more than the standard $5.99.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd happily pay half that to rent it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question: do you actually take your date to a premiere night or the "hottest and latest"? And an action flick to boot?
Because I never do that. When you're on a date, you want something that allows you to focus on what matters: your date. And you want a movie that she would genuinely enjoy, but wouln't be so enjoyable that we couldn't initiate romantic activities in the theatre. Was I always doing it wrong?
Re: What about PPV say $19.99? $24.99? $29.99? (Score:2)
I'm married with young kids, so date nights basically just require getting out of the house. Even when dating though, I remember dinner was when the focus was on my date and the movie was mostly just relaxing together and a bit of cuddling, plus something to talk about later. Not sure about everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
> Serious question: do you actually take your date to a premiere night or the "hottest and latest"?
"Date night" is a term usually used by married couples with kids. "A night out of the house."
If you're not married it's just called a "date."
Re: (Score:2)
Distinction I missed. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just wait for the blu ray and buy it for that price
Re: (Score:2)
What about them?
$1-5: Rental from Redbox, iTunes, or Amazon. An inability to rewatch it later is balanced by the low cost. Makes sense. It's a reasonable deal.
$5-10: A used blu-ray in a year or two. The ability to rewatch whenever, wherever, and as many times as I want (once I rip it into Plex, which doesn't judge me for buying used) justifies the higher price. Makes sense. It's a logical progression.
$5-10: The pre-COVID price for a ticket to a regular/IMAX matineeshowing in town. I'm trading away the abili
Re: (Score:1)
Once you are a year behind the curve, everything is super cheap all the time. And it's not like most movies provide much of a shared cultural experience any more.
Can't say I blame them (Score:2)
I May Never See It (Score:1)
They can put it in the theater AFTER they release it to PPV or whatever, and I'll still see it in the theater. But if it doesn't come to the theater at some time, again, I'll likely not see it.
Re: (Score:1)
Theater's Time To Die (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I just posted to make the bad joke in the subject line.
That said, I've been thinking about this since I first heard the report and I want to see this movie so badly that I would gladly subscribe to whatever service buys it just to watch this. Which means I'll promptly forget to cancel my subscription after watching and they will have an ongoing customer. I can't see how any streaming service wouldn't want that.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie studios must have some data on this, there were a few films released direct to streaming this year. Maybe they have found that it just doesn't make as much money as a theatre release.
I imagine piracy is a factor, normally the only thing available on release day is a cam version, but with all the streaming ones they could be downloaded in 4k Dolby Atmos H.265 luxury from day one.
Well, surprisingly Disney+ seems to be holding out for the moment as we are only seeing 720p rips of some shows, but I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Well, $600M for a worldwide movie release is decent, for the average blockbuster film, but this is James Bond and the studio probably wanted closer to a billion dollars, which would be the realm fro top name blockbusters. But that's ticket only sales.
There's probably a ton more at play too - because that's just first
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how any streaming service wouldn't want that.
How much do you want to pay for your streaming service? The question is if a streaming service thinks there are enough people out there like you to bring in more money than the $600million it would cost to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay up to $30 so that I could watch this Bond movie at home with my family.
Re: (Score:2)
And how long would you forget to unsubscribe? Because right now I doubt this movie will bring in 20 million new subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you want to pay for your streaming service? The question is if a streaming service thinks there are enough people out there like you to bring in more money than the $600million it would cost to do so.
The streaming service could also look into a model where premium movies are an extra charge above and beyond their standard monthly charge. Like Disney did with Mulan. This seems like a pretty good alternative to the theater model if a similar number of people are still willing to pay extra to see the movie a few months early (and not have to worry about spoilers as much).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh of course, that was why I posed the question. The OP said $30, so clearly he's interested in paying $20 for it plus $10 for the streaming service. Let's been nice and assume he forgets to unsubscribe for 4 months, the streaming service would need to find 10 million such new clients to make it worthwhile. That is a tall order.
How about a compromise? (Score:3)
Let the streaming companies (ex: Amazon, Apple and Netflix) split the bill and sell the streaming rights to all of them.
Also sell temporary exclusivity to the one that's willing to pay a bit more than the others. Ex: Pay 33% + 25 million and get streaming rights one week earlier than the others.
For all their mathematic insanity about pirates and imaginary losses of trillions of dollars per illegally downloaded copy, they seem to have turned into idiots when the time comes to actually sell their own product to streaming companies.
At this price (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you; but, if anything, Netflix will instead take that money and produce something of their own.
old models (Score:2)
"Sunk cost fallacy" (Score:2)
This is called the sunk cost fallacy. They have made a bunch of deals and spent a lot on the movie, and want to recoup as much as possible. However the market has changed, and there is no signal it would go back to normal. Even in 2021, people will *not* flock into movie theaters. They could expect at best a good half of the regular ticket sales + some premium home streaming ($20).
They also risk movie being leaked, scandals happening, or plain old "people losing interest". So it is not a free option to just
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me what the lure of theaters is (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And I have to wear a face mask right now so no thanks. Not an enjoyable experience at all right now.
Re: (Score:3)
And I have to wear a face mask right now so no thanks. Not an enjoyable experience at all right now.
This would be the main thing keeping me out of theaters. It is already barely better watching movies in theaters than at home, now it isn't even close to as good as my home viewing experience.
Stuck at home. Do us a solid. (Score:2)
So the planet is getting locked up again, stuck at home. How about doing us a solid and making available as rental for streaming so we have some entertainment?
Now I can always take my bike and ride into the forest go get some fresh air not everyone are so lucky.
I don't see what the surpise is (Score:3)
Everything has price. I have tough believing, there is any commercial property that isn't for sale.
Consider you are the studio. You have this movie, that you spent a ton capital investing in the production of that you cannot market through the normal channels right now. Your choices are 1) market the film the way you usually do, knowing sales will be soft. 2) Sit on it. 3) Sell it to someone else
if you do
1) You miss a lot of the first run revenue while people stay home. You maybe do better in secondary revenue, rental licenses, streaming licenses, dvd/bluray sales but that probably means poorer than usual ROI.
2) You don't know how long you have to wait, money has a time value, and you losing that every hour. My understanding of the structure of studio financing is they either have just enough capital to run current projects or borrow to run current projects. When they don't recoup capital quickly thru box office revenue on big budget movie it means trouble.
3) You get cash! That is why you made the film in the first place right? Cash is king! The only 'risk' is you undermine your traditional model for future releases but with back drop of covid and the degree of uncertainty there, the other options kind suck too and anything you do might have less long term impact on consumer trends than it would in ordinary times anyway. People are feeling deprived of going to the theater right now. The human psychological response is going to be a desire to go back the good old day of going to the movies with your friends and SOs. That is different than if they let it go to streaming some other time, and people chose to watch at home and find they 'like that'.
I am not surprised they'd at least shop it around to see if they could get enough dollars $$ to make the heart burn about threatening the traditional distribution model go away, while also securing their ROI target for the film itself.
EON needs to get real (Score:1)
Hollywood is still in denial (Score:2)
It is not a given that this movie could collect this much even during a "good" year, but asking so much money from streaming services is basically a highway robbery. Instead of spending 600M on purchasing this movie, Amazon or Netflix could hire a top flight producer and director to make a comparable spy flick for a quarter of that amount.