007 heading to streaming? Amazon buys MGM for $8.45 billion!

2456730

Comments

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    It's one thing for Netflix or Apple to have exclusive streaming rights to the Bond catalogue, including any new releases. It's another thing for Netflix or Apple to be producing new films and releasing them only on their platform, bypassing cinemas. I'm sure the latter scenario is a no-deal for EON and possible MGM.

    If MGM sells to Netflix or Apple (which is what this is about), they have zero say in the matter. Their 50% ownership of Bond goes to whatever company who has bought them.

    So if it comes to a sell, it's EON versus Apple or Netflix. And currently, EON does get a lot of leeway from MGM. If they want to hold out for Daniel Craig, fine. If they don't want to get on board with streaming, fine. If they don't want to do spin offs, fine.

    The possible consequence of MGM selling to a streaming service is much more severe than 'Bond films will be only on their platform'. It's about the freedom and the tradition EON has right now, to do things their way. Since the streaming market is faster than 'traditional film releasing', this means that EON might need to adapt to methods they don't want to.

    Brave new world.

    I don't like this. I may have criticised EON in the past but they're my favourite filmmakers right now and I feel like they should retain their own liberties.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    How do we know if this rumour is true?
  • Posts: 4,044
    Walecs wrote: »
    It's one thing for Netflix or Apple to have exclusive streaming rights to the Bond catalogue, including any new releases. It's another thing for Netflix or Apple to be producing new films and releasing them only on their platform, bypassing cinemas. I'm sure the latter scenario is a no-deal for EON and possible MGM.

    If MGM sells to Netflix or Apple (which is what this is about), they have zero say in the matter. Their 50% ownership of Bond goes to whatever company who has bought them.

    So if it comes to a sell, it's EON versus Apple or Netflix. And currently, EON does get a lot of leeway from MGM. If they want to hold out for Daniel Craig, fine. If they don't want to get on board with streaming, fine. If they don't want to do spin offs, fine.

    The possible consequence of MGM selling to a streaming service is much more severe than 'Bond films will be only on their platform'. It's about the freedom and the tradition EON has right now, to do things their way. Since the streaming market is faster than 'traditional film releasing', this means that EON might need to adapt to methods they don't want to.

    Brave new world.

    I don't like this. I may have criticised EON in the past but they're my favourite filmmakers right now and I feel like they should retain their own liberties.

    They would have to buy the 50% share off MGM for that. Otherwise they are stuck with their partners wishes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,187
    It's one thing for Netflix or Apple to have exclusive streaming rights to the Bond catalogue, including any new releases. It's another thing for Netflix or Apple to be producing new films and releasing them only on their platform, bypassing cinemas. I'm sure the latter scenario is a no-deal for EON and possible MGM.

    Correct. Streaming makes a lot of sense for certain films that likely wouldn't set fire at the box office like MARRIAGE STORY and THE IRISHMAN, but I can't see Apple or Netflix being content to just dropping a Bond on their platform when it could potentially make a billion dollars at the box office.

    It would make more sense if they do what Disney currently does where they still release films theatrically and then exclusively put it on their streaming service a few months after home video/rental.

    MGM as a studio has been fragile for way too long and has been needing some serious rejuvenation, and having an owner like Apple maybe what keeps them afloat.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    Posts: 524
    vzok wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    It's one thing for Netflix or Apple to have exclusive streaming rights to the Bond catalogue, including any new releases. It's another thing for Netflix or Apple to be producing new films and releasing them only on their platform, bypassing cinemas. I'm sure the latter scenario is a no-deal for EON and possible MGM.

    If MGM sells to Netflix or Apple (which is what this is about), they have zero say in the matter. Their 50% ownership of Bond goes to whatever company who has bought them.

    So if it comes to a sell, it's EON versus Apple or Netflix. And currently, EON does get a lot of leeway from MGM. If they want to hold out for Daniel Craig, fine. If they don't want to get on board with streaming, fine. If they don't want to do spin offs, fine.

    The possible consequence of MGM selling to a streaming service is much more severe than 'Bond films will be only on their platform'. It's about the freedom and the tradition EON has right now, to do things their way. Since the streaming market is faster than 'traditional film releasing', this means that EON might need to adapt to methods they don't want to.

    Brave new world.

    I don't like this. I may have criticised EON in the past but they're my favourite filmmakers right now and I feel like they should retain their own liberties.

    They would have to buy the 50% share off MGM for that. Otherwise they are stuck with their partners wishes.

    But if MGM wishes to sell the company, I doubt they’ll first negotiate a deal with EON about that 50% share. The value of MGM decreases incredibly without the Bond rights. MGM wants to go to their prospective buyers with 50% of Bond still in their portfolio.
  • Posts: 3,164
    It's one thing for Netflix or Apple to have exclusive streaming rights to the Bond catalogue, including any new releases. It's another thing for Netflix or Apple to be producing new films and releasing them only on their platform, bypassing cinemas. I'm sure the latter scenario is a no-deal for EON and possible MGM.

    Correct. Streaming makes a lot of sense for certain films that likely wouldn't set fire at the box office like MARRIAGE STORY and THE IRISHMAN, but I can't see Apple or Netflix being content to just dropping a Bond on their platform when it could potentially make a billion dollars at the box office.

    It would make more sense if they do what Disney currently does where they still release films theatrically and then exclusively put it on their streaming service a few months after home video/rental.

    MGM as a studio has been fragile for way too long and has been needing some serious rejuvenation, and having an owner like Apple maybe what keeps them afloat.

    Netflix most definitely would be over the moon to drop it on their platform. Apple would be the one more willing to play ball with traditional theatrical runs...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,187
    antovolk wrote: »
    Netflix most definitely would be over the moon to drop it on their platform. Apple would be the one more willing to play ball with traditional theatrical runs...

    Can we be certain? They've never premiered a franchise film close to something like Bond. They would get a lot of streaming views for sure, but would it be as beneficial a theatrical run? It's not like THE IRISHMAN where Netflix can afford to waste the money on the budget because they were looking to add more prestige to their brand. A movie like that was never going to make enough at the box office to justify its budget. But when James Bond can potentially make a billion dollars, would Netflix really pass on that?
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 3,164
    antovolk wrote: »
    Netflix most definitely would be over the moon to drop it on their platform. Apple would be the one more willing to play ball with traditional theatrical runs...

    Can we be certain? They've never premiered a franchise film close to something like Bond. They would get a lot of streaming views for sure, but would it be as beneficial a theatrical run? It's not like THE IRISHMAN where Netflix can afford to waste the money on the budget because they were looking to add more prestige to their brand. A movie like that was never going to make enough at the box office to justify its budget. But when James Bond can potentially make a billion dollars, would Netflix really pass on that?

    Yes. It's not their business model. Unlike the other streamers they don't have other things that would allow them to play around - their focus is subscribers and holding off Bond from the service for 90 days+ is something they wouldn't want and not something they'd be able to justify. They'll give it a 4 week window like Irishman at most for the prestige, which means it won't be a wide theatrical run as the major chains will refuse to show it.

    Remember, when Bond makes a billion, only half of that goes to the distributors and MGM/EON...
  • Posts: 4,044
    vzok wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    It's one thing for Netflix or Apple to have exclusive streaming rights to the Bond catalogue, including any new releases. It's another thing for Netflix or Apple to be producing new films and releasing them only on their platform, bypassing cinemas. I'm sure the latter scenario is a no-deal for EON and possible MGM.

    If MGM sells to Netflix or Apple (which is what this is about), they have zero say in the matter. Their 50% ownership of Bond goes to whatever company who has bought them.

    So if it comes to a sell, it's EON versus Apple or Netflix. And currently, EON does get a lot of leeway from MGM. If they want to hold out for Daniel Craig, fine. If they don't want to get on board with streaming, fine. If they don't want to do spin offs, fine.

    The possible consequence of MGM selling to a streaming service is much more severe than 'Bond films will be only on their platform'. It's about the freedom and the tradition EON has right now, to do things their way. Since the streaming market is faster than 'traditional film releasing', this means that EON might need to adapt to methods they don't want to.

    Brave new world.

    I don't like this. I may have criticised EON in the past but they're my favourite filmmakers right now and I feel like they should retain their own liberties.

    They would have to buy the 50% share off MGM for that. Otherwise they are stuck with their partners wishes.

    But if MGM wishes to sell the company, I doubt they’ll first negotiate a deal with EON about that 50% share. The value of MGM decreases incredibly without the Bond rights. MGM wants to go to their prospective buyers with 50% of Bond still in their portfolio.

    I’m sure that’s what would happen too, so EON are then stuck with their new partners wishes. MGM gave EON a fair amount of liberty with decisions. Someone new might have their own timetables.
  • Posts: 4,409
    Netflix is now worth more than Disney


    Netflix are now the industry leader. This pandemic has really sped up the inevitable in this respect.

    I was pretty convinced that Bond 26 would go to a streaming service. Considering our new reality, I feel there is an outside chance that NTTD (&perhaps even MGM) is bought by Netflix. NTTD would skips a premium VOD release and go straight to streaming.....

    Out of all the big blockbusters that have been delayed Bond is unique as its produced by a solitary studio who do not have a robust financial footing.

    Would we want NTTD to debut on Netflix? I'm so very conflicted.....
  • Posts: 4,044
    Why would they skip a premium release?
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,409
    vzok wrote: »
    Why would they skip a premium release?

    Because Netflix can afford to pay them what is needed.....they could cover expenses and put MGM back in the position they were before and even allow them to make a profit. It cost Netflix $300-350m to buy NTTD.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,343
    I feel it won’t happen, under Barbara’s watch.
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    I'd watch Bond on a streaming service in a heartbeat. I just want to see the film.
  • Posts: 12,526
    With the current situation it certainly could be a possibility? These truly are unreal times.
  • Posts: 4,409
    I came across this headline from last year:


    Pending theatrical distribution being back on its feet in late 2020, it seems that Apple want to debut their bigger-ticket items in theatres before unspooling on their streaming services.

    This is quite a high-risk strategy as many audiences have shown that they would sooner wait than see something at home. This is clear from the Amazon model, which effectively was left in the dust by Netflix. Amazon suffered numerous failures at the box office and now seem to be pivoting to streaming-only releases.Plus, the point of new releases is to drive people to your streaming service over your competitor.

    Much would depend on the film though, if Amazon had a hot franchise that could sell tickets then people would turn up to theatres. Arguably, they went too 'prestige' and the model didn't work.

    Perhaps, Bond could be that franchise? It be a shame if Eon were to go to streaming that they would sacrifice theatres altogether. Plus, Bond is a cinematic franchise, I don't think they want to re-brand as a streaming franchise. Nor should they as their last 2 films made nearly $2billion together.

    One would hope that if a streaming service buys MGM (which is looking likely) that service commits to a full theatrical window. Something Netflix has very consciously avoided................which leaves us with Apple. I'd be comfortable with Apple making Bond 26.

    I just don't dig that their service is called 'Apple TV+', you can't debut a film on a service with 'TV' in its name. Great logo treatment though:

    appletvplus.jpg
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 17,756
    This is quite a high-risk strategy as many audiences have shown that they would sooner wait than see something at home. This is clear from the Amazon model, which effectively was left in the dust by Netflix. Amazon suffered numerous failures at the box office and now seem to be pivoting to streaming-only releases.Plus, the point of new releases is to drive people to your streaming service over your competitor.

    I must admit, I wasn't even aware that Amazon had theatrical runs for some of their releases.
  • vzok wrote: »
    Why would they skip a premium release?

    Because Netflix can afford to pay them what is needed.....they could cover expenses and put MGM back in the position they were before and even allow them to make a profit. It cost Netflix $300-350m to buy NTTD.

    If this is the case, and remember they stumped up the money for The Irishman when all the major studos wouldn't, I think MGM would bite their hands off for it.
  • Posts: 4,409
    Netflix have made some big acquistions from Hollywood studios in recent days...including the new Sherlock Holmes spin-off starring Millie Bobbie Brown that was going to be distributed by Warner Bros:



    We know that Universal and MGM have distrubtion for NTTD, but this pandemic has changed the rules of the game (and it has become increasingly ifficult to keep up with those rules). I can't see either Universal and MGM giving up a big threatrical realse like Bond. The revenue from threatres is too big a loss for them to contemplate. For now.

    However, the absolute worst case scenario is that threatres re-open and there is zero appetite for people to attend, or alternatively cinemas could be the source of a wider spread or second peak. The worst worst scenario is threatres don't open till 2022 or when a vaccine is widely available.

    What happens then? I am honestly of the mindset that Eon will wait for cinemas to re-open. Even if it means delaying until summer 2021. But isn't this when companies like Netflix come knocking? Netflix's stock price is increasing and they can make afford to make bold gestures.

    It's certainly food for thought in these extraordinary times.
  • Netflix have made some big acquistions from Hollywood studios in recent days...including the new Sherlock Holmes spin-off starring Millie Bobbie Brown that was going to be distributed by Warner Bros:



    We know that Universal and MGM have distrubtion for NTTD, but this pandemic has changed the rules of the game (and it has become increasingly ifficult to keep up with those rules). I can't see either Universal and MGM giving up a big threatrical realse like Bond. The revenue from threatres is too big a loss for them to contemplate. For now.

    However, the absolute worst case scenario is that threatres re-open and there is zero appetite for people to attend, or alternatively cinemas could be the source of a wider spread or second peak. The worst worst scenario is threatres don't open till 2022 or when a vaccine is widely available.

    What happens then? I am honestly of the mindset that Eon will wait for cinemas to re-open. Even if it means delaying until summer 2021. But isn't this when companies like Netflix come knocking? Netflix's stock price is increasing and they can make afford to make bold gestures.

    It's certainly food for thought in these extraordinary times.

    A ray of hope today - human trials of a vaccine begin on Thursday in the UK.
  • Posts: 4,409
    Very interesting article with MGM's new CEO, Michael De Luca:



    Basically since he took the top job, De Luca has been aggressive in pursuing exciting buzzy projects. Which is something he has undeniably achieved in recent months (even with the pandemic seeing others being more thrifty).

    However....the twist in the tale seems to be that De Luca is taking these steps to prime MGM for acquisition by Apple! This is something that has long been floated, but it seems that MGM are seeking a new parent company. Someone who can ensure they don't hit hard times and can be a big brand in the movie business.

    Apple are ideally placed. They have a flagging streaming service begging for content. What better then MGM's vast library to exploit? Not only that, but Apple want to get into the movie business desperately and have their eyes on Oscar this year with the new Sofia Coppola/Bill Murray reunion. Not to mention the fact that Apple outbid competitors for the sure-fire soon-to-be-Oscar-nominated Marty Scorcese film, Killers of the Flower Moon.

    I think it won't be long before we hear the news that MGM is going to Apple.....I think Apple would do very good to the Bond franchise. In fact, I think they'd be ideally situated as it would be their only franchise!

    I also think Apple would never block MGM operating as a theatrical company that releases movies in cinemas. But if a deal was to make obviously some of MGM's future output would have to go straight to Apple TV+. But it seems clear to me that Bond would be something that Apple would give the big international theatrical roll-out to.

    Jo2VUN.jpg
  • Posts: 4,409
    Let's take a poll; if it was announced tomorrow that either Netflix or Apple had bought MGM and NTTD was going to streaming, what would be people's reaction be?


    960x0.jpg?fit=scale

    Would we be enthusiastic? Personally, I'd be a little heartbroken as I really was willing Craig and Fukunaga a lot of success at the BO with this film. However, that may not be possible in a post-pandemic world.

    In which case, I'd prefer streaming to PVOD - which to me just seems a little tacky and not befitting the Bond franchise. Moving forward, I think if Bond 26 became a streaming player, then I wouldn't mind. But I'd like the film to be built from the ground up as a streaming movie. Opposed to say 'Greyhound' or 'Woman at the Window' which were sold off.

    I don't think Universal or MGM would sell distribution to NTTD to a streamer. However, there is a very real chance that MGM will get bought by one.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited August 2020 Posts: 3,497
    It.will.not.happen.

    @Pierce2Daniel, you're very, very tiresome, you know that?


  • In other news, CR is on Netflix (in the USA at least).....All the talk of the NTTD trailer dropping tomorrow has got me itching to watch SF again. Any idea where you can stream it in the UK?


  • It's been a little quiet since we heard anything about the Apple/MGM rumours. The same bloke who claimed Tom Hardy is the new 007 is now stating the 'talks' are ongoing.

    I personally think it's likely to be true. Apple desperately need content and franchises. If they bought MGM, that takes them part of the way there. Furthermore, if they continue their streak of acquiring big name filmmakers (Russo brothers, Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg) than they could be a force to be reckoned with eventually.

    I think Apple as a brand suits Bond. It's bespoke, high-end, expensive. All attributes that go with the franchise. Opposed to Disney who are all about mass-consumption, corporate appeal and lunchboxes.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    The problem with Apple is that at this moment in time, they have the weakest streaming service on the market right now, and to appeal to Bond, they'd need to really up their game. Overall, I think Bond going to streaming would be a terrible idea, and would probably sink the franchise, and not to mention I think we'd end up with a cardboard cutout version of what we've got before.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited September 2020 Posts: 814
    Personally, I hope EON goes with Netflix. With not only that but also Disney+ and CBS All Access, I’m at my absolute limit with streaming services, I don’t want another one and I’m not sure I could afford another one anyway. Besides, there’s are better reasons to go with Netflix as it has an already user base and it’d be easier since a handful of Bond films are already on there. Still release every new entry in theaters but the complete series’ streaming home is Netflix.
  • It's annoying that Bond doesn't have a streaming home, i.e. the entire existing catalogue being available in a single streaming service, whether Netflix, Prime, Apple, etc. In Canada at least, they're not included with any service... just for paid rental.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    It's annoying that Bond doesn't have a streaming home, i.e. the entire existing catalogue being available in a single streaming service, whether Netflix, Prime, Apple, etc. In Canada at least, they're not included with any service... just for paid rental.
    Sky Movies sometimes does a special thing. I think I remember either around Skyfall or Spectre, they had a whole James Bond channel where they just played the movies all day - but I understand it's not the same.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    I think Apple as a brand suits Bond. It's bespoke, high-end, expensive. All attributes that go with the franchise. Opposed to Disney who are all about mass-consumption, corporate appeal and lunchboxes.

    Ah here, come on! I understand the want to justify these things in one's head but any company that uses child labor shouldn't be fawned over like this.

    "Bespoke"? Hardly. They're mass producers of products just like anyone else. "High-end"? Not really. "Expensive"? Yes, certainly.

    I'll give you this, though; Disney certainly are no better.
Sign In or Register to comment.