It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The main headlines are:
NTTD selling to a streamer is a real possibility, however it's clear that MGM and Apple were speaking different languages in negotiations. Apple coming in with a high offer of $400m and MGM entering talks at $800m, means that if the parties meet in the middle you have a $600m deal (probably why that number has been floated around).
That's the destined figure both parties know that they have coming to in negotiations and t's just way too high.
I actually think Apple's number is reasonable - especially if you consider this was a figure in September and NTTD was coming out in November when talks were happening. You only had to look at Tenet's BO to see that Apple's figure was sensible (if not conservative). But MGM's $650-800m is crazy. Clearly based on a pre-pandemic estimation. If they are real about this, then they need to move that figure down. Considering Apple are willing to pay and MGM want to sell, then a sensible final number would be $450-500m (even that's nuts) for both parties.
But the major caveat is that Broccoli ain't ready to send NTTD to streaming. At least not on Kevin Ulrich's terms. I think she has quite the commitment to theatrical (much like Nolan) and wants DC to have a big final movie not go out the back door. (But wasn't there quotes of her talking about streaming???! Where are they???)
I agree with you 100%, but convincing Omega, Aston, Heineken, Tom Ford, Belvedere, Bollinger, etc etc may not be so easy.
It just wont happen the money involved is beyond streaming services, though you make a very good point regarding sponsors/product placements.
Agreed. I don't know much about these backdoor deals or whatever, but if Barbara has any say I don't imagine it'll go to streaming until streaming is all that's left.
2021 will be an interesting year I choose to be optimistic in that this will all end and things will get back to some semblance of normality, hypothetically speaking if there is a vaccine in 2021 surely the flood gates will open and people will feel confident to resume normal day to day activities... going to the cinema etc. Worst case scenario we are in the same place in a years time and there is no other option than some movies to take the best deal from streaming services.
lol
Streamfinger
Doctor No going to the cinema
From Netflix with Love
Stream Another Day
For Apple TV Eyes Only
Amen.
I actually set up this thread in the wake of a perfect Sunday at home watching The Irishman in comfort. It was a sharp contrast to my cinema trip to see Joker a few weeks before where a bunch of kids were playing on their phones and talking.
However...The caveat here is that Bond deserves the biggest screen. The Irishman was cinematic in the best sense, but it suited Netflix (perhaps because of the runtime). Also for every Irishman on Netflix, there is a Rebecca.
The pandemic has made me realise how important the cinema experience is. It's the reason why I sought out the BFI IMAX for Tenet. It'll also be the reason why I'll make more of an effort to go to the cinema when this is over. Not just to Peckhamplex for a fiver (though I love that place) but to some of the more impressive cinemas the city has to offer. I realise now how much I took it for granted.
If MGM/Eon caved and went streaming, it would be a crushing blow for me. I legit got a little down about it yesterday. My hype has seriously nosedived recently. I can't even be bothered to read the total Film article or watch the Rami Malek interview. I just can't get excited with these streaming rumours.
While I generally have a love/hate thing going when it comes to the attending the cinema, when it is done ‘right’ they’re few things that can match it. The combination of an enthusiastic (near sell-out) crowd and a good (or so bad its’ good) movie is always a memorable experience.
For example, one of my personal 2019 highlights was seeing a 3D screening of “The Creature From the Black Lagoon” in a packed house (on a Monday evening no-less!). Did I have the movie on DVD? Yes. But seeing it with a large number of fellow fans made the effort (and cost) to see it in a theater extra special. The communal experience of watching a movie can’t be overlooked.
In some ways – IMO only, of course – the situation the studios and theater chains now face is somewhat similar to that of the mid-1950s in the US. That era saw the rise of television and as a result, movie attendance dropped as many questioned the need to “pay” for entertainment – especially when they could see things for free from the comfort of their own homes. In response, we saw the rise of the “movie epic” (think “Lawrence of Arabia”) and eventually content that you couldn’t get at home. Now with the rise of 60-inch 4K TVs and streaming, I guess the same question is being asked: how do we get people to the movie theater?
I, for one, don’t have an answer, but I suspect that once the theaters in NYC re-open and I see “2OO1” or “West Side Story” playing somewhere (yet, again), I’m going to go.
As for NTTD heading to Apple (or some other service), I would only hope that EON/MGM, etc. would allow for some-type of theatrical release once conditions permit.
I just listened to a podcast that discussed this very shortly and they brought up a point I hadn't heard before:
For movies and especially for blockbusters like NTTD and Bond films, the leads and the director will have some type of points deal, meaning they earn money on top of their base pay, if the movie does well at the box office (this is mentioned in as a sidenote in the Hollywood Reporter piece). This of course falls flat if the movie is sold to a streamer. I'm not a Hollywood lawyer (shocking, I know), but I personally wouldn't just accept it if I signed on to a project with a certain performance bonus and a couple of years later the company decided to not compete in the market that is relevant for my bonus.
They might be able to work something out for this one film (because the whole point of selling it to a streamer is to avoid very bad box office performance due to Covid which would in turn mean no/very low bonuses), but if the whole franchise goes to a streamer, this would mean the structure of the deals the lead creatives on the movies get would significantly change. The film is sold once (or never, if the streamer owns the studio) and then it just lives on their platform forever and that's it. I don't we really have an idea, what that would mean for the type of people the franchise can attract (and Bond is still Bond. A selling point in itself), but it would certainly be a change.
And depending on the company, they might not even care how many people actually see the movie or subscribe or buy it on PVOD, but rather, how many toys or phones they can sell or how many people they can get into their theme parks. Which might turn of certain types of actors and directors.
How can you compare a soggy, low rent american TV movie to James Bond?
That's your opinion which you are entitled too, I did not see The Irishman in that way.
I remember that scene. It seemed a little jarring.
...with a pinch of salt.
The supposed 'insider knowledge' that this video alludes to should be taken with a pinch of salt.
That MGM is bleeding cash at an astonishing rate surely has to be true, though. A delay of 18 months from the first projected release date is surely the limit. Even if if does come out in April, I would think that audiences will be severely down, and it has no real chance of hitting the sort of numbers it would be hoping for?
Does anyone have any idea how much HBO paid for the Snyder Cut? Certainly No Time To Die is a less risky property for them to launch. I mean why would MGM not canvas all streaming options. I am not fully on board with this as a likely option but it certainly seems reasonable. Especially HBO in a post Game of Thrones world.
Fair enough.
The point about MGM likely to be true, though.
Besides, I'm sure it's info you can find elsewhere. MGM having internal issues? In other news, the sky is blue.
Yes but the point is not to big up Midnight Edge or whatever they are called, just to consider what the likelihood of NTTD going to ppv or streaming.
I guess the new information is what is being called into question not the willingness to sell. We have it confirmed that they tried but couldnt get their asking. I am more curious about whether HBO has appriached MGM. This seems like it would be a good selling partner. As I said earlier HBO has a riskier film being released in the new year comparatively Bond is a slam dunk.
Basically HBO Max is paying $70 million+ to let Snyder release his uncompromised 4 hour vision. They hope the SC to perform well in order to expand the Snyderverse on HBO Max with a Batfleck miniseries with Leto's Joker and Manganiello's Deathstroke, a possible JL sequel Snyder already has planned etc etc.
I heard rumors of the proposed series you mentioned, unfortunately HBO MAX wont be available in the UK at any time it seems. though SKY or Netflix will likely pick up Justice League: The Snyder Cut
https://www.gamesradar.com/uk/wonder-woman-1984-could-release-on-hbo-max-a-week-after-theaters/
I think this illustrates that films won't be delayed indefinitely even huge films like WW84, It will be interesting to see what Warner decide.