They bought franchise rights to bond! I could see more movies, maybe even a series. It’s not just young people that stream. Having a library like 100 years of mgm is huge. Not to mention EPIX is included. Apple lost out.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon to Acquire MGM for $8.45 Billion Amid Competition With the Likes of Netflix and Apple TV+
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You do have to worry, look at blackberry vs Apple. But having a major studio with 100 years of content, is a sound investment
They don't get 100 years of MGM content. Warner Brothers has control of 99% of the content before 1986. All those movies produced by MGM in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and so forth? They are owned by Warner Brothers.
MGM also did not own 100% of James Bond, they owned 50%. The Broccoli family has a ton of control over what happens with Bond, so it's not like Amazon will be able to do whatever they want with the property.
First, 50m is ultra low budget these days. In the best of cases, offering 100+ low budget pics would be a pathetic joke next to 100+ years of MGM catalog. You really want to put Palmer and Haia up against Rocky, Hannibal and The Wizard of Oz? The MGM list even includes Spaceballs.
Second, who is going produces these 100+ movies? There is a ton of money being thrown at Hollywood right now and all it's doing is proving that throwing 10 times the money at 10 times the people to make 10 times as many movies does not give you any more good movies. There is so much crap being produced now on huge budgets because there just isn't the talent available. So in reality, you can spend $50 million to have a third rate film school grad produce something that looks like a school project or you can have the Rocky series.
MGM/Amazon does not own The Wizard of Oz. Warner Brothers has control of 99% of the MGM catalogue before 1986. Rocky is one of the few exceptions. All the classic stuff MGM produced back in the Golden Age of Hollywood belongs to Warner at this point.
Then why are people talking about Amazon having rights to all of the James Bond films? At least a dozen of them predate 1986.
My concern is that with more consolidation there's less competition, which will eventually lead to higher prices, and that your $50 for five streaming services will quickly become $150-200. Hope I'm wrong.
I didn't know that, thank you. I just learned MGM's history is quite a long story.
The $8.45 billion figure makes more sense now than being the bargain of the century, but it still seems like a much better film library than Apple could make with $9 billion over a couple of years.
James Bond is United Artists, which had nothing to do with the classic MGM properties that ended up with Ted Turner in the 1980's. Probably explains why Rocky is still owned by MGM as well. Rocky was/is United Artists. Ted Turner's ownership of the classic MGM properties turned into Warner Brothers. How many people realize that MGM has been a shell of what they think it is for decades? MGM had to declare bankruptcy in 2010.
They (MGM/Amazon) don't even have full rights to James Bond. They have 50% and the Broccoli family has 50%. The Broccoli family also has way more control of how the Bond movies get made and released, meaning Amazon will not be able to simply exploit the hell out of it like people think/expect.
It’s not a stupid comment. While Apple needs more content, they are more like quality HBO than everything and the kitchen sink like MGM. The biggest problem with Apple, is that that they are not producing content fast enough. The real Trojan horse is live sports. If Apple could land licenses, it could be their break out moment.
While I love the Prime catalog as it is now and I welcome MGM, i don’t believe most viewers care about old films. New Bond films will still be approved by the Broccoli family, so it’s not like Bond on vacation 5 is coming.
The ONLY show I have seen on my AppleTV+ is Ted Lasso, that was after over a year of having it. Might check out Mankind too. Otherwise it looks like gloss and little else. They should have bought this, if for James Bond alone, to give them a bit of cool. They are not in the same league as Disney+, Netflix or Amazon. Apple needs to dig deep into its pockets and buy a studio or two to Go Big, or Go home.
EON Productions - who own the other 50% and wield much more control - are unlikely to ever agree to this kind of universe building.
I don't see managing multiple subscriptions as a particular inconvenience, especially if they're available through the Apple interface. It's not like they require maintenance - you just set them up and it's done.
The bigger inconvenience is having to use multiple apps to access the actual content. The main reason I don't subscribe to Netflix is that it doesn't work with the Apple TV app. If everything was available as an Apple TV channel I'd subscribe to way more stuff.
Yeah. Even I was surprised to note that MacRumours thinks Apple TV+ as a competitor to any of the other platforms as of today. I have literally not opened the app in the past two months and I open all the other apps regularly.
I think the chance of Apple being broken up is quite high before the big tech is broken up.You got that right. Apple TV+ is already a joke. I don't even know anyone who knows what it is. They have no major catalog of content that anyone knows about.
But in general, I can't wait to see Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos squeal like stuck pigs when Big Tech is broken up and half of their toys are forced to be shared with the other kids in the school yard.
Apple is always last to act and then it will end up with some crappy company like Beats!
Come to think of it though, the James Bond books are public domain. Amazon can make new Bond films based on names, characters and events from the books and there’s nothing Eon could do about it. The films are usually kinda self contained anyway, so it’s not as though you’d be missing much not being able to reference previous ones.
And of course, that’s not just true for Amazon - anybody can make their own James Bond films. Kinda makes you wonder why they think it’s worth much money at all. How much would you actually lose by not being able to reference previous films in your new film?
I don’t see how Casino Royale would have been substantially different if it were forbidden from referencing Die Another Day. Maybe Bond would drive a Bentley instead of an Aston.
And of course, that’s not just true for Amazon - anybody can make their own James Bond films. Kinda makes you wonder why they think it’s worth much money at all. How much would you actually lose by not being able to reference previous films in your new film?
I don’t see how Casino Royale would have been substantially different if it were forbidden from referencing Die Another Day. Maybe Bond would drive a Bentley instead of an Aston.
Last edited:
Amazon isn't a Canadian company, so Canadian copyright expiring doesn't really do much for them.
Ah, longer copyright terms in the US and Europe are there? <looks ups> Fair enough. What’s that - 2034 then?