No Time to Die production thread

19819829849869871208

Comments

  • Posts: 187
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 187
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2021 Posts: 8,231
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 187
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    You are again skipping over the big problem. Say it releases in November cause its safe; they will likely still be met with smaller seating percentages and shorter exclusivity windows for theaters. That will HIGHLY dent its box office income.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2021 Posts: 8,231
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 187
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2021 Posts: 8,231
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?

    Okay, so now we're talking about MGM. Cool.

    What grand decision would you like them to make?

    Disney have always been rolling in dough, even before they acquired dozens of well known IPs that have allowed them to do what they're doing now. MGM have Bond and.....? RoboCop? Rocky? The Handmaid's Tale? It's a false equivalency.
  • km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?

    Okay, so now we're talking about MGM. Cool.

    What grand decision would you like them to make?

    Disney have always been rolling in dough, even before they acquired dozens of well known IPs that have allowed them to do what they're doing now. MGM have Bond and.....? RoboCop? Rocky? The Handmaid's Tale? It's a false equivalency.

    Plus the fact that Disney has their own streaming service as well.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?

    Okay, so now we're talking about MGM. Cool.

    What grand decision would you like them to make?

    Disney have always been rolling in dough, even before they acquired dozens of well known IPs that have allowed them to do what they're doing now. MGM have Bond and.....? RoboCop? Rocky? The Handmaid's Tale? It's a false equivalency.

    Plus the fact that Disney has their own streaming service as well.

    An important aspect, for sure. Handy for Disney.
  • km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?

    Okay, so now we're talking about MGM. Cool.

    What grand decision would you like them to make?

    Disney have always been rolling in dough, even before they acquired dozens of well known IPs that have allowed them to do what they're doing now. MGM have Bond and.....? RoboCop? Rocky? The Handmaid's Tale? It's a false equivalency.

    Plus the fact that Disney has their own streaming service as well.

    An important aspect, for sure. Handy for Disney.

    And HBOMax as well. I can understand the call for putting NTTD on a streaming service and cut their losses, it’s one that I’ve previously called for without thinking too much into it. But the issue arises with the rights issues. I know the Comcast platform has all of the Bond films on there, so maybe that could work. Or maybe they could license NTTD out to multiple streaming services at the same time, eliminating the exclusive aspects. But at the same time, if there is yet another delay for NTTD, which seems likely, then if I’ve waited this long for the film already, then I can wait a bit longer.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Disney for all their Faults run the business angle of their empire with staggering efficiency and returns
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?

    Okay, so now we're talking about MGM. Cool.

    What grand decision would you like them to make?

    Disney have always been rolling in dough, even before they acquired dozens of well known IPs that have allowed them to do what they're doing now. MGM have Bond and.....? RoboCop? Rocky? The Handmaid's Tale? It's a false equivalency.

    Plus the fact that Disney has their own streaming service as well.

    An important aspect, for sure. Handy for Disney.

    And HBOMax as well. I can understand the call for putting NTTD on a streaming service and cut their losses, it’s one that I’ve previously called for without thinking too much into it. But the issue arises with the rights issues. I know the Comcast platform has all of the Bond films on there, so maybe that could work. Or maybe they could license NTTD out to multiple streaming services at the same time, eliminating the exclusive aspects. But at the same time, if there is yet another delay for NTTD, which seems likely, then if I’ve waited this long for the film already, then I can wait a bit longer.

    If a deal was sorted and NTTD was put on to a streaming platform tomorrow I would be over the moon with excitement. If only it were so simple. It may be that simple in the future, but for now it's rock and a hard place time.
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 2,296
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Disney for all their Faults run the business angle of their empire with staggering efficiency and returns

    I agree, and I say that as someone who absolutely despises everything that Disney has become.
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    km16 wrote: »
    NTTD really only needs a decent two week window to get itself over the line. That's very doable if they get the timing right. It would be more than they'd make on any streaming service, unless someone meets their asking price.

    If this were 2019, sure. Its not. That is no guarantee anymore. Normal audience size is no guarantee. Not in this day and age. At this point, its an unknown.

    Which is why they wait until they can release it safely. See? ;)

    That's beyond the point, and its ludicrous to think that a company will continue to push a product back indefinitely, thus continue to lose money during a period of time when the future holds so many unknowns and the financial return even on big franchises is not a guarantee. What if it is still not safe come November 2023 and the vaccine is not effective toward mutant strains? What then? Let it sit on a shelf for 3 or 4 years? Lose even more money? As big as Bond is, there is no guarantee it will make a butt load of cash if people are still uncomfortable being in a closed off and cramped room with dozens of others this time next year even if its 'safe.'

    Audiences are being spoiled now with more options. To a fan, sure. Big screen, yay. General audience with kids or busy schedules? Why make the trip anymore when you have a subscription for home viewing? Sure, most will go back to theaters but the hows and whys of what that will be like will likely change. Will it, for the foreseeable future, be simultaneous releases for both theater and home settings? Will it be a significantly shorter window of theatrical exclusivity? Will it be with only a small percentage of seats available? Even if its safe, all three of those highly likely options will take a toll on the money the film makes.

    It is not a case of "When its safe, it will release and all will be fine and dandy. Roll on B26." For us its all fine, we can wait it out - life goes on. They are a business that is losing money every day that goes by with an unreleased film. Meanwhile, countries are fumbling the vaccine handout and theater chains are risking closing for good. Some already have. Its dire, honestly, so just expecting everything to be okay as long as we wait it out is laughable.

    And frankly, in my own opinion, believing Bond to be a theatrical only experience and believing themselves to be 'above' streaming services is naive and asinine. I have lost count on how many movies I have seen on streaming services that were better than those I have seen theatrically in terms of writing and quality. When even a company as big as Disney is starting to prioritize streaming, get with the program or be left behind.

    This is a very undisciplined rant completely irrelevant to anything I've said. Nobody said anything about stuff "being fine and dandy". I don't think anybody considers themselves "above" streaming. I'd be fascinated to hear where you got that idea?

    The facts are: Bond doesn't have a streaming service, while it does have an international distribution deal in place. Unless someone agrees to a figure that is acceptable to the powers that be, that is how it will be. If they agreed to a sum below the asking price, then they'd be assured of losing money. A million a month for another eleven months is pennies in comparison.

    In comparison to an unknown box office climate where they, and other films, may flop on their face like Tenet... yeah.

    Okay, so we've disproved the competition thing, and you've agreed that the money being lost by a delay is small in comparison with the alternatives. So you're just worried about the box office climate in general now, correct? That's fine. But this is pretty much just a heightened version of the reality the suits who invest their money in the films already deal with, and if they want to wait then they will. They're not exactly oblivious to what other studios are doing. People bring up Disney's move to streaming as if people at EON/MGM/Universal didn't know about it. They do. They likely knew before we did. They could ultimately make a botch job of it (they're human!) but they will make a decision based on information that none of us have access to. Just because Disney is doing it doesn't mean it's the only way.

    Disney - rolling in dough through great decisions and blockbuster releases.
    MGM - hardly.

    If you are betting on MGM to make grand decisions, well, don't know what to tell you. They have only been struggling to stay alive how many years now?

    Okay, so now we're talking about MGM. Cool.

    What grand decision would you like them to make?

    Disney have always been rolling in dough, even before they acquired dozens of well known IPs that have allowed them to do what they're doing now. MGM have Bond and.....? RoboCop? Rocky? The Handmaid's Tale? It's a false equivalency.

    Plus the fact that Disney has their own streaming service as well.

    An important aspect, for sure. Handy for Disney.

    And HBOMax as well. I can understand the call for putting NTTD on a streaming service and cut their losses, it’s one that I’ve previously called for without thinking too much into it. But the issue arises with the rights issues. I know the Comcast platform has all of the Bond films on there, so maybe that could work. Or maybe they could license NTTD out to multiple streaming services at the same time, eliminating the exclusive aspects. But at the same time, if there is yet another delay for NTTD, which seems likely, then if I’ve waited this long for the film already, then I can wait a bit longer.

    If a deal was sorted and NTTD was put on to a streaming platform tomorrow I would be over the moon with excitement. If only it were so simple. It may be that simple in the future, but for now it's rock and a hard place time.

    Sadly I agree, I would love nothing more than to be able to watch the film already. Though I will admit, in a strange way, after having been less than excited for NTTD as perhaps I should’ve have been, each delay seems to increase my excitement for the film. Very strange.
  • Posts: 1,870
    Well at least there is another track from the album to listen to though I'm not all that happy with it.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    delfloria wrote: »
    Well at least there is another track from the album to listen to though I'm not all that happy with it.
    The audio is distorted so hopefully it’s more satisfying when released officially.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    jake24 wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Well at least there is another track from the album to listen to though I'm not all that happy with it.
    The audio is distorted so hopefully it’s more satisfying when released officially.

    Where is this track?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,920
    It's on the No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)discussion, @DonnyDB5. Also linked below.

    Nice to get little breadcrumbs like this, unfortunately it's pretty unlistenable more than once.

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19099/no-time-to-die-production-thread-minor-spoilers-allowed#latest

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    It sounds like it has potential, but why is it so distorted?? That’s terrible.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    It sounds like it has potential, but why is it so distorted?? That’s terrible.

    It's ripped from the podcast with the dialogue removed. It hasn't actually been released yet.
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    edited January 2021 Posts: 469
    Isn't this just from Skyfall? (the first part)
    Middle sounds like a TND remix - same riff as Surrender and the tracks that used Surrender as its basis

    Last one...This one is new.

    Something else as well - the content ID has flagged something as being Back to MI6 from the NTD soundtrack - seems like Youtube has some info! Think anyone could give a snoop about the Hans Zimmer YT page and sniff out some hidden tracks? Being that it was Content ID'd may mean that the entire OST already exists somewhere on YT's servers, and could be weeded out if one were to try hard enough.

    I think the last track is Back to MI6 - unless Zimmer has baited us and the middle one with the theme remeniscent of TND makes a surprise entry.

    Below are other rips from the podcast, also believed to be from NTTD, slightly cleaner:

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/377873771014389771/793662073992380467/NTTD_AUDIO_FILTERED_4.mp3

    (Back to MI6 - as ID'd on the video - interesting!)

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/377873771014389771/793662073992380467/NTTD_AUDIO_FILTERED_4.mp3

    (Unknown - can someone make a burner yt and upload to see if we get a snag from content ID?)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 16,606
    As I said on the other thread it does sound very much like Skyfall. What with this and the gunbarrel I guess they’ve used a few of Newman’s arrangements for the Bond theme bits, possibly as they didn’t have very long to make the score.
    Although it’s very important to us, I guess when you’re looking at making a Bond score quickly the bits with the Bond theme in you might actually worry about less because that’s already been written. Zimmer’s not going to compose the gunbarrel himself when there are new, original bits to be done, and when there are fine examples of gunbarrels which already exist!
  • Posts: 121
    mtm wrote: »
    and when there are fine examples of gunbarrels which already exist!

    True, but the Spectre gunbarrel score is not one of them. The wrong portion of the Bond theme was used for the blood dripping down part, just like in TND and TWINE.
  • Posts: 842
    Haha very interesting, and helpful of YouTube's technology! What an age we live in. Very encouraging to know those snippets are indeed Hans...
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    Posts: 469
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    Haha very interesting, and helpful of YouTube's technology! What an age we live in. Very encouraging to know those snippets are indeed Hans...

    I am tempted to upload them tbh, however i am quite tired rn so maybe later
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    Posts: 469
    Alright, lads, I've mustered up enough energy to put both of my isolated tracks up on YT.

    Now, we wait for Content ID to take the bait and give us names to these tracks....



  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,920
    Thanks for that @phantomvices, good to listen to.
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    Posts: 469
    Alright, lads, I've mustered up enough energy to put both of my isolated tracks up on YT.

    Now, we wait for Content ID to take the bait and give us names to these tracks....



    Mystery track 1 (the second on this post) has been identified! It has been ID'd as Back to MI6, much like the post above. The other one remains unknown....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Excellent, good work!

    That one sounds very Arnold to me.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,680
    New pics of NTTD cars at BIM. Nomi's Royal Alloy GT125 scooter in the background.



    135126225_933886934085341_3623732361495917035_n.jpg?_nc_ht=instagram.fadl3-1.fna.fbcdn.net&_nc_cat=105&_nc_ohc=v0N2rMnoE48AX86Nqun&tp=1&oh=58f4f362499325fe140d326bcb763a37&oe=601B684A



    134166877_441961716849177_9219174982625977351_n.jpg?_nc_ht=instagram.fadl3-1.fna.fbcdn.net&_nc_cat=109&_nc_ohc=B5U8f9N_r3MAX_0NJWf&tp=1&oh=35445baaeab6abeb2c5dc769aa8bd06a&oe=601E5A9B
Sign In or Register to comment.