“To bring the movie Exclusively to Apple TV+“ ... does anybody see a problem with this? Can you say monopolistic ? This is bad for consumers. Really would prefer to see Bond in the theater first where it belongs. If it must be streamed it should be available to multiple services. I don’t have Apple TV or TV+ or whatever they call it these days.
From the above responses, it looks like absolutely nobody “sees a problem with this”. Try again. But first, maybe find out what a monopoly actually is instead of regurgitating blog headline tropes.
“To bring the movie Exclusively to Apple TV+“ ... does anybody see a problem with this? Can you say monopolistic ? This is bad for consumers. Really would prefer to see Bond in the theater first where it belongs. If it must be streamed it should be available to multiple services. I don’t have Apple TV or TV+ or whatever they call it these days.
Who in their right mind is ready to go to a movie in a theater?
I was at a film in my local cinema a few weeks ago. It was a bit surreal with all of us scattered around the room. We had to wear masks entering and leaving but not during the film. But Tenet was good enough to make it worthwhile.
I've been trying to figure out for a long time whether such numbers represent ticket sales or profit. A significant portion of ticket sales ends up in the hands of theatres. If I told you how much you probably wouldn't believe me, so I won't say how much. But do these numbers represent before or after theatres take their cut?
This last Bond movie has had a 3-4 reshoots after the movie was wrapped up and still the test audience did not like it after each reshoot. The original Bond script was very WOKE and rumor came out that the 007 number was assigned to a female agent. Then in the 1st re-shoot allegedly she was assigned a different # but then in the re-shoot after that the storyline did not make sense with a change of # and was reshoot again for other stuff and the # went back to 007! The rumor now are all over the place! This Bond movie is going be interesting since 70% of the audience are male and are not the WOKE type of male.
I've been trying to figure out for a long time whether such numbers represent ticket sales or profit. A significant portion of ticket sales ends up in the hands of theatres. If I told you how much you probably wouldn't believe me, so I won't say how much. But do these numbers represent before or after theatres take their cut?
Yeah, those are ticket sales, and a significant portion does go to the theaters, but the theaters don't get any of the sales, rentals, licensing to other distributors, or merchandise. I've always assumed that if the movie grossed more in the theaters than it cost to make that it's probably a fair bet that it's a net positive overall.
I've been trying to figure out for a long time whether such numbers represent ticket sales or profit. A significant portion of ticket sales ends up in the hands of theatres. If I told you how much you probably wouldn't believe me, so I won't say how much. But do these numbers represent before or after theatres take their cut?
Yeah, those are ticket sales, and a significant portion does go to the theaters, but the theaters don't get any of the sales, rentals, licensing to other distributors, or merchandise. I've always assumed that if the movie grossed more in the theaters than it cost to make that it's probably a fair bet that it's a net positive overall.
That is gross revenue, not profits! Remember, in China, the government takes 40% of the ticket sales revenue but it is not get deducted from gross revenues. Expenses in movie making are heavy in marketing expenditures! DVD and streaming revenue are in the gross revenues.
I've been trying to figure out for a long time whether such numbers represent ticket sales or profit. A significant portion of ticket sales ends up in the hands of theatres. If I told you how much you probably wouldn't believe me, so I won't say how much. But do these numbers represent before or after theatres take their cut?
Yeah, those are ticket sales, and a significant portion does go to the theaters, but the theaters don't get any of the sales, rentals, licensing to other distributors, or merchandise. I've always assumed that if the movie grossed more in the theaters than it cost to make that it's probably a fair bet that it's a net positive overall.
That is gross revenue, not profits!
That is what I said.
Remember, in China, the government takes 40% of the ticket sales revenue but it is not get deducted from gross revenues. Expenses in movie making are heavy in marketing expenditures! DVD and streaming revenue are in the gross revenues.
No, gross ticket sales do not include physical media sales months later, licensing to networks, merchandise or anything else that isn't related to the box office gross.
Thanks for trying to bring the debate back in line.
That’s going to be the issue - how much. The Disney attempt with Mulan was ridiculous. Huge Bond fan but not sure how much I’ll pay - def not $34.99 ($4.99 + $30).
“To bring the movie Exclusively to Apple TV+“ ... does anybody see a problem with this? Can you say monopolistic ? This is bad for consumers. Really would prefer to see Bond in the theater first where it belongs. If it must be streamed it should be available to multiple services. I don’t have Apple TV or TV+ or whatever they call it these days.
You’d rather pay $20 +$10 for a small Coke to watch the movie in a filthy pétri dish of a theater? You do know that Apple TV+ or whatever you call it these days costs $4.99 for a month?
“To bring the movie Exclusively to Apple TV+“ ... does anybody see a problem with this? Can you say monopolistic ? This is bad for consumers. Really would prefer to see Bond in the theater first where it belongs. If it must be streamed it should be available to multiple services. I don’t have Apple TV or TV+ or whatever they call it these days.
You’d rather it sits in a vault? It’s always been this way. They’re just skipping the theatres and moving straight to streaming. I’m sure it’ll be released on Blue Ray and downloadable on iTunes. AMC theatres is like days away from bankruptcy. I don’t think we will see the theatre experience return to normal for a long time.
Deals such as this don’t preclude a streaming version of the film at some point (for those who don’t want to pay $5 for ATV+, but instead pay $6 to stream it).
MGM has cash flow needs just like any other company, and this film was supposed to be released this past Spring. It isn’t getting more valuable with the passing of time.
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max have all bought the rights to films which would otherwise have been in theaters. The only place to see said film is on that service. Nobody yells at the other companies, all of which charge more than $5/mo, some of which can’t stream a DolbyVision and Dolby Atmos version of the film.
Remember when it was rumored that Tim Cook had a final say and was editing all scripts. According to the Apple haters here this would result in Bond (Bondi Blue) fighting Peecee Galore.
hahaha! thank you for cooling down what seems to be becoming a heated comment thread.
I'm personally a little bummed. While I too prefer to watch movies at home (just buy them outright), I made sure we went and saw Tenet on opening day to not only support theaters but to do what little I could to show it's currently a viable model to release new movies. But... well, they're now considering Tenet anything but a success so it looks like studios will either sit on their movies or release them on a streaming service. Apple TV seems as good as any on which to do that...
“To bring the movie Exclusively to Apple TV+“ ... does anybody see a problem with this? Can you say monopolistic ? This is bad for consumers. Really would prefer to see Bond in the theater first where it belongs. If it must be streamed it should be available to multiple services. I don’t have Apple TV or TV+ or whatever they call it these days.
This is how literally every single TV and movie production works. Netflix has a mountain of exclusives. So does Prime Video. We can argue the toss over whether this entire business model should exist, and who knows maybe there’s a case to say that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to do exactly what Netflix and Amazon do (a big maybe in my opinion) but that’s a way bigger issue than a single Bond movie.
And if you’d really like to see Bond in the theatre first, you’re not alone. But, y’know, global pandemic...
I prefer to watch movies at home. In my pijamas.
Agreed! People eat like donkeys at movie theatres!
I have a problem with people throwing the word “monopoly“ around in places it is not at all relevant.
I wonder what a streamer would have to pay to get exclusivity rights for this movie that is apparently living on “fumes”.
I suspect far too much. Which runs the risk of some leech of an MBA credentialed mid level executive coming up with the amazingly cunning plan of charging to view the movie on top of the monthly subscription. Like Disney+ and Mulan. On the risk of that very thing happening I would prefer negotiations for an exclusive on Apple TV+ fall through.
Exclusivity on iTunes as a rental or buy for a time OK, charging on top of a subscription, just say no.
if the streaming deal deal includes the back catalogue that would be awesome.
I've been trying to figure out for a long time whether such numbers represent ticket sales or profit. A significant portion of ticket sales ends up in the hands of theatres. If I told you how much you probably wouldn't believe me, so I won't say how much. But do these numbers represent before or after theatres take their cut?
Yeah, those are ticket sales, and a significant portion does go to the theaters,
Glad you agree. Most people are utterly clueless what the percent is that the theatres take. They would probably guess 5% to 10% and they would be wrong. But I'll give you a small clue: the percent they get to keep is double during the first week of release of a picture.
“To bring the movie Exclusively to Apple TV+“ ... does anybody see a problem with this? Can you say monopolistic ? This is bad for consumers. Really would prefer to see Bond in the theater first where it belongs. If it must be streamed it should be available to multiple services. I don’t have Apple TV or TV+ or whatever they call it these days.
It'd only anti-competitive/anti-trust/buzzword-of-the-week when Apple does it.
This last Bond movie has had a 3-4 reshoots after the movie was wrapped up and still the test audience did not like it after each reshoot. The original Bond script was very WOKE and rumor came out that the 007 number was assigned to a female agent. Then in the 1st re-shoot allegedly she was assigned a different # but then in the re-shoot after that the storyline did not make sense with a change of # and was reshoot again for other stuff and the # went back to 007! The rumor now are all over the place! This Bond movie is going be interesting since 70% of the audience are male and are not the WOKE type of male.
Oh yeah forgot all about that. It's supposed to be a male bash fest and the old Bond is supposed to look like a pu**y.
This last Bond movie has had a 3-4 reshoots after the movie was wrapped up and still the test audience did not like it after each reshoot. The original Bond script was very WOKE and rumor came out that the 007 number was assigned to a female agent. Then in the 1st re-shoot allegedly she was assigned a different # but then in the re-shoot after that the storyline did not make sense with a change of # and was reshoot again for other stuff and the # went back to 007! The rumor now are all over the place! This Bond movie is going be interesting since 70% of the audience are male and are not the WOKE type of male.
Oh yeah forgot all about that. It's supposed to be a male bash fest and the old Bond is supposed to look like a pu**y.
So, like every commercial, tv show, and movie from the past 3 years?
Comments
No, gross ticket sales do not include physical media sales months later, licensing to networks, merchandise or anything else that isn't related to the box office gross.
PS: RIF.
Deals such as this don’t preclude a streaming version of the film at some point (for those who don’t want to pay $5 for ATV+, but instead pay $6 to stream it).
MGM has cash flow needs just like any other company, and this film was supposed to be released this past Spring. It isn’t getting more valuable with the passing of time.
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max have all bought the rights to films which would otherwise have been in theaters. The only place to see said film is on that service. Nobody yells at the other companies, all of which charge more than $5/mo, some of which can’t stream a DolbyVision and Dolby Atmos version of the film.
But please, continue. You were saying...?
Exclusivity on iTunes as a rental or buy for a time OK, charging on top of a subscription, just say no.
if the streaming deal deal includes the back catalogue that would be awesome.
It'd only anti-competitive/anti-trust/buzzword-of-the-week when Apple does it.
If this article was about Netflix acquiring the rights he would bash Apple for not bidding on this highly popular IP.
Oh yeah forgot all about that. It's supposed to be a male bash fest and the old Bond is supposed to look like a pu**y.