Apple May Be Seeking to Acquire Bond Film 'No Time to Die' for Apple TV+

[Realityck]

OK Apple only $6 Billion to acquire MGM film library of around 4,000 titles and 17,000 hours of TV programming.

See MGM Holdings, Studio Behind ‘James Bond,’ Explores a Sale - WallStreet Journal 12/21/2020

Movie studio has tapped bankers to find a buyer, as media companies look to stock up on content

MGM Holdings Inc., the movie studio behind the “James Bond” franchise, is exploring a sale, according to people familiar with the matter, betting that its library of content will prove attractive to companies pursuing growth in streaming video.

Closely held MGM has tapped investment banks Morgan Stanley MS 5.69% and LionTree LLC and begun a formal sale process, the people said. The company has a market value of around $5.5 billion, based on privately traded shares and including debt, some of the people said.

Also see MGM Enlists Advisors to Explore Sale (Report) - Hollywood Reporter 12/21/2020

 

[Marshall73]

OK Apple only $6 Billion to acquire MGM film library of around 4,000 titles and 17,000 hours of TV programming.

See MGM Holdings, Studio Behind ‘James Bond,’ Explores a Sale - WallStreet Journal 12/21/2020

Movie studio has tapped bankers to find a buyer, as media companies look to stock up on content



Also see MGM Enlists Advisors to Explore Sale (Report) - Hollywood Reporter 12/21/2020

Would likely be issues with the Bond films as they are owned by Danjaq and MGM, I would expect that any sale would exclude the Bond franchise which would require seperate negotiations with Danjaq.

 

[chucker23n1]

I think Apple would rather build its own franchises than rely on something like Bond. Sure, "it's the service that has all Bond movies on it" is a draw, but only for one-time growth. The films are quite formulaic; you were either into them the first time you saw one or you weren't, and they've been around for half a century. Contrast Marvel on Disney+: the MCU only started around 2008, and while there are big commonalities, a lot of films also have their own specific touch (the Avengers series is quite different from the Thor one, say). CBS All Access / Paramount+ also follows this approach: don't have one big Star Trek show for everyone; instead, have a variety of shows that appeal to different people. I don't think that you can do that with Bond.

They also have Stargate, though. Maybe that?

 

[Realityck]

I think Apple would rather build its own franchises than rely on something like Bond. Sure, "it's the service that has all Bond movies on it" is a draw, but only for one-time growth. The films are quite formulaic; you were either into them the first time you saw one or you weren't, and they've been around for half a century. Contrast Marvel on Disney+: the MCU only started around 2008, and while there are big commonalities, a lot of films also have their own specific touch (the Avengers series is quite different from the Thor one, say). CBS All Access / Paramount+ also follows this approach: don't have one big Star Trek show for everyone; instead, have a variety of shows that appeal to different people. I don't think that you can do that with Bond.

They also have Stargate, though. Maybe that?

There is an awful lot of StarGate fans waiting for all the original series shot in 16:9 aspect ratio to be cleaned up from the DVDs. Take a look at the Stargate SG1 HD raw images taken at

https://imgur.com/a/kECuGoQ

Please someone buy MGM and start releasing some of this stuff.

 

[sublunar]

I think Apple would rather build its own franchises than rely on something like Bond. Sure, "it's the service that has all Bond movies on it" is a draw, but only for one-time growth. The films are quite formulaic; you were either into them the first time you saw one or you weren't, and they've been around for half a century. Contrast Marvel on Disney+: the MCU only started around 2008, and while there are big commonalities, a lot of films also have their own specific touch (the Avengers series is quite different from the Thor one, say). CBS All Access / Paramount+ also follows this approach: don't have one big Star Trek show for everyone; instead, have a variety of shows that appeal to different people. I don't think that you can do that with Bond.

They also have Stargate, though. Maybe that?

Notwithstanding the additional ownership rules though, owning the IP means they can spin off the James Bond cinematic universe into TV shows that lead into the movies, parallel films with 008 (who happens to be a woman for instance) which will then lead into making a James Bond team-up movie.

The Spy genre can be limiting in a sense but why not have some adventures with Q, political machinations with M, and some international missions led by other MI6 departments in places around the world - they don't all have a licence to kill and each show could uncover parts of the next big threat that they have to wheel out 007 for.

Yes, Bond films are 'formulaic' but most of them are of their time and they are crucially very popular around the world. They also try and keep up to date - look what they did with the Daniel Craig series after Jason Bourne became popular and they invited some big name directors to (albeit mixed) acclaim.

The price quoted for MGM surely can't include the Bond films as the recent talk suggesting a $1bn price for 1 year of streaming was very steep - under $6bn for all of the IP is surely a bargain in comparison.

It's not a million miles away from the Stargate point you made although I'm not sure how much value there is in cleaning up the old material for re-release.

They would also have an instant library of content which is a major argument against for some people at the moment.

All of this is moot while Apple have been offering free access to AppleTV+ with purchase of devices but that has to come to an end at some point as people have to perceive of it as a service worth paying for - especially if they want to flog it as part of the Apple One package - and TV production is slower and more expensive than before thanks to COVID.

Buying films for advance screening could be a venture worth exploring - certainly with the world in this state at the moment - and Netflix shows there might be a market in reviving mid budget films ($40-60m) with name stars which were long thought to be dying out. This will inevitably come at the expense of making theatre owners very unhappy though.

 

[chucker23n1]

Notwithstanding the additional ownership rules though, owning the IP means they can spin off the James Bond cinematic universe into TV shows that lead into the movies, parallel films with 008 (who happens to be a woman for instance) which will then lead into making a James Bond team-up movie.

I mean, in theory, sure… but does the Bond source material really support that breadth?

A series about Q Branch… maybe.

The Spy genre can be limiting in a sense but why not have some adventures with Q, political machinations with M, and some international missions led by other MI6 departments in places around the world - they don't all have a licence to kill and each show could uncover parts of the next big threat that they have to wheel out 007 for.

Yeah. It’s possible I’m not thinking big enough. (It’s also possible there just isn’t much there. Does this attract new fans? Are existing fans into a broader franchise?)

Yes, Bond films are 'formulaic' but most of them are of their time and they are crucially very popular around the world.

Sure, but I don’t think Apple would be content with just “oh yeah, we do Bond now”.

They would also have an instant library of content which is a major argument against for some people at the moment.

It is, but it Apple wanted a back catalog, they’d probably have bought that a lot sooner?

 

[cmaier]

I think Apple would rather build its own franchises than rely on something like Bond. Sure, "it's the service that has all Bond movies on it" is a draw, but only for one-time growth. The films are quite formulaic; you were either into them the first time you saw one or you weren't, and they've been around for half a century. Contrast Marvel on Disney+: the MCU only started around 2008, and while there are big commonalities, a lot of films also have their own specific touch (the Avengers series is quite different from the Thor one, say). CBS All Access / Paramount+ also follows this approach: don't have one big Star Trek show for everyone; instead, have a variety of shows that appeal to different people. I don't think that you can do that with Bond.

They also have Stargate, though. Maybe that?

One idea would be a “bond universe.” Different double-0’s, with different personalities, building up their own franchises. Franchises with spies from other countries, who occasionally interact with the double-0’s. A q-branch sitcom. The 00-training academy series. Etc. etc.

I think if the price was right, Apple would have benefited from Bond. But the price was apparently too high.

 

[sublunar]

I mean, in theory, sure… but does the Bond source material really support that breadth?

A series about Q Branch… maybe.

Yeah. It’s possible I’m not thinking big enough. (It’s also possible there just isn’t much there. Does this attract new fans? Are existing fans into a broader franchise?)

Sure, but I don’t think Apple would be content with just “oh yeah, we do Bond now”.

It is, but it Apple wanted a back catalog, they’d probably have bought that a lot sooner?

The demographics of Bond are interesting - they make a lot of money in overseas markets - there is huge brand recognition in world markets - but viewers in the 'traditional' big markets of mainland Europe and the US skew older and perhaps less diverse. Younger folks probably think Bond is too boring.

The premise of Bond makes it easy for luxury brands like Aston Martin and Omega (to name but two) to get involved.

On the flip side, in the past we have had films like xXx (yes, the old Vin Diesel film from 2002) making fun of the old trope of posh middle aged white super spies wearing tuxedos being out of place in an underground rave.

We've also had Bond looking incredibly dated when Jason Bourne came along (twitchy camera work, shady goings on in so called friendly agencies) - so much so that later Bond films took some of the more modern film making and plot themes came along.

So, along comes Apple when the prospect of streaming No Time to Die comes along. Both Apple and Netflix are willing to pay hundreds of millions of $$$ for the right to the 'new' film but the price is too high amidst rumours of a $1bn / 1 year exclusivity deal. I'd balk at that too.

If you then compare with the entire MGM library for around $5.5Bn - I expect this could go up if a bidding war erupts (but maybe that's the point).

It appears that Apple want to go with 100% originals for their AppleTV+ service which is fine but they can't then assume that people will put $5 a month that way when there's services out there with so much content for not much more - Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime for example.

Do they really see AppleTV+ as a product people will pay up front for or is it a value makeweight for any kind of AppleOne plan? Without wishing to dig deep into the Apple Arcade argument again there just isn't anything compelling there in itself for casual players.

I'd say that Apple probably aren't seeing a back catalogue as a prime driver for AppleTV+ and don't want to spend their cash pile on a sole Bond film for a limited time period but that means they have to live with the slow pace of adding content to a service which isn't going to be a streaming destination for most people.