When studios report what a movie generates is that the same as the profit figure highlighted in Storage Wars? You know the one where they don't factor in the owner's wage, employees' wages, vehicle use and fuel, property insurance, liability insurance, vehicle insurance, utilities, property taxes, etc.
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.
Apple May Be Seeking to Acquire Bond Film 'No Time to Die' for Apple TV+
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The longer the big studios hold their films back, the more likely many movie theaters won’t survive, a few specialised ones apart, if they are even open to begin with.
Unless there is a vaccine and that’s a if in itself, there won’t be movie theater attendance numbers as in the before times. I won’t be anytime soon, that’s for sure.
Unless there is a vaccine and that’s a if in itself, there won’t be movie theater attendance numbers as in the before times. I won’t be anytime soon, that’s for sure.
Whether big studios put movies into theaters or not, hardly anyone’s going to see them.
Yes, that’s obviously the other part.
Result is still the same: pandemic risk, little/no new films, little/no attendance, mostly closed theaters.
The old way was already one a one way street, now all of it it’s just accelerating it‘s crash.
IMO the sooner the studios adapt, the better in the long term.
Waiting it out is just putting their heads in the sand. For many economic sectors they are talking about multi-year recoveries to go back to before times, IF a vaccine is found.
Movie Theaters don’t have that time.
Connery will always be my favorite Bond. BUT, Craig has breathed life into the franchise and both Casino Royale and Skyfall are spectacular movies.
They all race around in Corvettes because that's what the real astronauts did back in the 60's. The reason THEY did it was a local dealer knew he’d sell more 'Vettes if everyone saw the astronauts in them and he gave them all good deals (like long term leases for $1, before leasing was even a thing). So, same idea but it wasn't a modern product placement... it was a 1960's one.
This would obviously be a massive win for Apple TV+
Would they re-shoot every scene to involve James having an iPhone, tho?
hell yes!! I’d subscribe a year just for this movie for early release!
regarding the refining to show Bond carrying an iPhone 12 Mini/Pro ... they already took a stab at Sony using the bond theme showing off the mini and I’ve stated on that thread it was a stab against Sony since Sony always features their own phones in bond movies and they have the rights to the movie
and now Sony has no compact phone.
actually studios have to get rights from Apple to use their products first. Apple wants to insure no villain uses their products apparently. An early news post this year on macrumors stated this.
The new Bond film will not be coming to Apple as they rejected MGM’s asking price.
Half of those people are balking at sh*t-poor video quality from the streaming service.
Here in the UK, Cineworld has basically completely shut indefinitely due to the new Bond film being cancelled. Thousands of staff may lose their jobs as a result. Its difficult for the industry as when Tenet was released, me and the wife went to watch it in the cinema and there was basically only about 4 to 5 other people. When we watched New Mutants it was completely empty.
Sean Connery obviously. The next four were essentially good looking gentlemen. They brought in Daniel Craig after the success of the Bourne Identity. The Bonds were too gentile. Bourne demonstrated a more realistic brutal style, and a more authentic jarring video style. So Daniel Craig was the Jason Bourne version of Bond ... especially Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace - which were brutal, in your face, violent, and physical (e.g. the jumping around the contruction site in Africa and falling down the frameworks in Sienna).
Many theaters are long term closed in the US too. Even if they open, they will never be packed (unless they can find idiots willing to risk their lives). So it would seem to be a very viable option to offer it online. But like Greyhound, one good movie does not make a monthly streaming service worthwhile.
But if they wait another year or two, they are jamming up their next Bond movie after that. In retrospect they should have released it before the virus outbreak. They take way too long with their production and stringing each movie out. And the last few have been disappointing story lines. So they need to re-think what they are doing - like Star Wars and Star Trek franchises have done.
Depends on the location. What the real problem is that studios want a high turnout so that they don't encounter higher commissions with movie theater take over several weeks. Each week a film is playing the higher percentage of the take goes to the movie theater its playing at. So if you got a film that draws a fraction of consumers into a movie theater and it remains showing week after week, the studio will see far less profit against those theater commissions. This pandemic has been lousy for both, but the studio takes a much higher loss going this route. Even Tenet is a example where the movie theater chains are talking a substantial cut of studio profits, compared to normal times. Look at the boxofficemojo daily domestic take and see how low we are currently in the states.
Just as a rule of thumb if a movie makes $200 million in movie theaters, the studios are likely see half of that. The problem with online is that not everyone wants to spend $30 on a premium exclusive VoD, they will just wait for it to be cheaper. Right now the argument of which medium is more effective rests with Mulan results which per mediaplay news was the #1 streaming title October. They should reflect how well this did Nov 12. Even Greyhound I not sure that brought the $75 Million to Apple to make up for its expense.
This $400 Million with $600 Million expected shows how there is a lot of risk using a single movie to gain marketshare for a streaming service. If they had all the Bond movies streaming free with their subscription with some exclusivity deal that would be so much better.
Honestly curious - would it not be the case that an online-released film like Mulan would have saved a ton of money on the marketing costs that would ordinarily have been spent in cinemas? Which by extension means that a studio wouldn't have needed as big of a return versus a standard release?
They'd still throw a... half-ton of money at marketing "watch this now on streaming". And there's a whole lot to pay for on a movie without counting the marketing. And the deals for how much they get per showing-or-ticket are... complicated, and change over time (like the studios get a different amount the second week than they do the first, which is why they try so hard to get everyone into the theaters on opening weekend).
More info behind the scenes of the deal that never happened...
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Behind MGM’s Apple Overture: How Much Is a Bond Movie Worth?
Apple kicked the tires on No Time to Die and mulled an offer in the $350 million to $400 million range, which was a non-starter for MGM.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
$600m would make a lot of original content which Apple would own forever rather than spend a lot of money on a short exclusivity window.