Apple allegedly making big push for $5 billion James Bond 007 movie franchise rights

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    The next villain is Jay Y. Lee. 
    I’m a fan of the idea of Sean Connery being a villain (like he mentioned he wanted to), but they’ll have to fucking hurry up if that’s in the cards.
  • Reply 22 of 41
    Daniel Craig certainly gave new life to a tired franchise. Prior to him it had become too stupid and cartoonish. 

    While this is true, weirdly, the Craig Bond movies are the only ones I've not had an interest or inclination to watch again. I have rewatched every other Bond movie at least twice.
    [Deleted User]
  • Reply 23 of 41
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,631member
    The next villain is Jay Y. Lee. 
    I’m a fan of the idea of Sean Connery being a villain (like he mentioned he wanted to), but they’ll have to fucking hurry up if that’s in the cards.
    He mentioned this recently?  Because I thought he was totally retired.   His last role was in 2003's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen".   He did show up at the US Open last week and he does look damned good, especially for 87, and with studio makeup and toupee would look even better.   The cameras caught him and put him on screen and they played the James Bond theme and Connery smiled big time.   

    http://people.com/celebrity/sean-connery-smiles-at-us-open-james-bond-theme/

    A quick cameo in a James Bond film might also be fun, but it also might take one of the movie.  "Wait...that's James Bond...I thought that other guy was James Bond."   If Connery really wanted to get back in the game and could do it physically and mentally, I'd love to see him doing Bond as an old man more akin to what Alec Guinness did in the Smiley's People TV mini-series back in 1982, although Guinness was only 68 at the time (but looked older).   It could even be a similar plot - being brought back to find a mole, although all that might be far too serious for a typical James Bond movie. 

    Hard to believe that "The Rock" was over 20 years ago.   He might as well have been James Bond in that film.   Change his character's name and add the Bond theme to the score and it was a Bond movie.   


  • Reply 24 of 41
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,631member

    Daniel Craig certainly gave new life to a tired franchise. Prior to him it had become too stupid and cartoonish. 

    Depends on your viewpoint. All of my friends agree with me. We're first generation Bond fans who watched Connery and Moore in theaters. None of us like the vicious, thuggish Craig Bond.
    I'm a first generation Bond fan as well and while I do think that Connery was great (Moore less so), I agree with Christopher.   The films had become too silly before Craig, but that has probably less to do with Craig himself and more to do with a new strategy for the stories and scripts.   Any of the Bond actors could have played him more seriously if the scripts had let them.   And I don't see Craig's Bond as thuggish at all, just a bit less elitist and more psychologically troubled than the prior Bonds.    Ian Fleming originally pictured Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael.  He thought secret agents should be able to fit in and disappear in a crowd, not stand out.   
  • Reply 25 of 41
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    I want another Clint Eastwood orangutan movie.  Or how about Dirty Harry and James Bond investigate flagrant theft at the seniors' early bird special buffet?
    edred
  • Reply 26 of 41
    zoetmb said:
    And I don't see Craig's Bond as thuggish at all, just a bit less elitist and more psychologically troubled than the prior Bonds.    Ian Fleming originally pictured Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael.
    And Bond in the books, if I remember correctly, smoked packs (plural) of cigarettes a day, only reducing that number if he had to do swimming missions. Craig Bond’s more overt psychological issues are a good foil for that, since we don’t want to glamorize smoking in media (but apparently have no problem with wanton drinking and fucking since the ‘60s…).
  • Reply 27 of 41
    anomeanome Posts: 1,483member
    Daniel Craig certainly gave new life to a tired franchise. Prior to him it had become too stupid and cartoonish. 

    Depends on your viewpoint. All of my friends agree with me. We're first generation Bond fans who watched Connery and Moore in theaters. None of us like the vicious, thuggish Craig Bond.

    Even though the vicious, thuggish Bond is closer to the books? One of the things I liked about Dalton is that he brought the edge back to Bond. Shame his films were such crap, though. Craig is similar. He's playing Bond much closer to the books, but the films are just bad. (By contrast, Lazenby was awful as Bond, but O.H.M.S.S. is one of the best movies. Of course, Diana Rigg has something to do with that, but also the actual story. And the awesome score.)

    zoetmb said:

    A quick cameo in a James Bond film might also be fun, but it also might take one of the movie.  "Wait...that's James Bond...I thought that other guy was James Bond."   If Connery really wanted to get back in the game and could do it physically and mentally, I'd love to see him doing Bond as an old man more akin to what Alec Guinness did in the Smiley's People TV mini-series back in 1982, although Guinness was only 68 at the time (but looked older).   It could even be a similar plot - being brought back to find a mole, although all that might be far too serious for a typical James Bond movie.

    Bond and Smiley are two very different takes on the business. Both written by people who worked in the British intelligence services. Fleming, of course, mostly had experience during the war where everything was much more violent and immediate, so he wrote about someone who was sent into life-threatening situations to kill people. Le Carre worked in the post-War period, and so his books are about clever people making very careful plans, where the action mostly takes place off-screen, as it were, and more often as not, the good guys dying in some futile effort to stop the other side getting away with something.

    If this Apple deal goes ahead, I guess I will have been wrong about Bond carrying an iPhone now that Aston Martin have CarPlay.

  • Reply 28 of 41
    xamaxxamax Posts: 135member
    I don't mind Apple investing $100 billion in content and not making a cent.  Basically breaking even to build up the ecosystem.

    At +5 Billion for a single franchise,  should consider buying out Time Warner Inc altogether, quarter it to pieces and sell all that doesn't fit into  strategy, maybe moving into it in partnership with Disney. Just all TWC library, Time Magazine, HBO, etc should be worth it. Then "digitalize the entire business", adapt it to the digital future, heck the digital now! Paying $19 to watch a movie is unbelievably retarded and cavemen style business design failure.

    And yes, it is years late into the game, should have done that years ago.

    PS: Craig sucks big time, because of that they're forced to make the movies full of special effects, it became a second rated Bourne.
  • Reply 29 of 41
    xamaxxamax Posts: 135member
    They are going for 00X!

     :D :smiley: 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 30 of 41
    xamax said:
    They are going for 00X!
    It’s 007S, not 008. 008 is next year’s model.
    edited September 2017 radarthekatmr oSpamSandwich
  • Reply 31 of 41
    tshapitshapi Posts: 358member
    Do people forget. When you buy James Bond for 5b did anybody think to ask what rights there buying? Is it just the movie rights? Or is it all the rights? Movies, tv, books, franchising, toys, games, amusement park, and so on.   
  • Reply 32 of 41
    tshapitshapi Posts: 358member
    xamax said:
    I don't mind Apple investing $100 billion in content and not making a cent.  Basically breaking even to build up the ecosystem.

    At +5 Billion for a single franchise,  should consider buying out Time Warner Inc altogether, quarter it to pieces and sell all that doesn't fit into  strategy, maybe moving into it in partnership with Disney. Just all TWC library, Time Magazine, HBO, etc should be worth it. Then "digitalize the entire business", adapt it to the digital future, heck the digital now! Paying $19 to watch a movie is unbelievably retarded and cavemen style business design failure.

    And yes, it is years late into the game, should have done that years ago.

    PS: Craig sucks big time, because of that they're forced to make the movies full of special effects, it became a second rated Bourne.
    Charter bought twc and became spectrum lol
  • Reply 33 of 41
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,834moderator
    ireland said:
    It’s not clear with this article what’s meant. Obviously the streaming rights aren’t $5B. And if not it should be more clear. It’s also not clear by how it’s written whether Spectre lost the studio money or eared it $900M.
    According to Business Insider, it's an estimate of the distribution rights but it's just speculation from an 'insider', 'someone familiar with' and 'sources'. MGM Holdings is owned by hedge funds after going bankrupt in 2010 with billions in debt, which shows that previous Bond movies haven't been all that lucrative despite making over $10b revenue at that point. These shareholders are looking to profit from their investment:

    http://nypost.com/2014/08/15/hedge-funds-lusting-to-cash-out-of-mgm/

    They don't want to sell now though:

    http://nypost.com/2017/02/24/chinese-company-in-talks-to-buy-james-bond-studio/

    A spokesman for MGM said "MGM is in the strongest position ever and is not for sale." (2016 = $1.1b revenue, $156m net income)

    The turnaround in finances with the newer Bond movies allows them to profit without selling. MGM Holdings probably isn't worth more than the low billions in its entirety but selling out the rights to streaming companies can attract offers in the billions.

    $880m for Spectre in ticket sales is revenue, production costs were estimated at $245m but there's marketing on top and the ticket sales are split with the cinemas. The following said the movie needed $650m revenue to break even:

    http://variety.com/2015/film/box-office/spectre-box-office-1201633311/

    This leaves $230m profit of which Sony was to get 25% as part of the distribution rights, which would be $57.5m. The Sony email hack revealed details on profitability:

    http://www.popmatters.com/column/spy-for-sale-the-future-of-the-james-bond-series/

    "Using Sony’s own metric (which we know after the 2014 hack on Sony), the company made just under $31 million on Spectre. While it’s true that the four Bond films Sony has released since 2006 have raked in $3.5 billion at the box office, it’s a safe bet that Sony was not the prime collector of those funds. And Sony’s distribution contract with MGM/ Danjaq/ Eon ended in 2015 with Spectre."

    The question is why would the distribution rights be worth billions if they aren't near that in profitability. The same could be asked about Amazon paying $250m for The Grand Tour. It's all down to how you distribute the content. $880m in ticket sales for say $5 per ticket is 176m viewers. If a streaming service can attract 10m of those viewers into a streaming contract at $10/month for 12 months, that generates $1.2b. This isn't profit again but it could make the offers worth a high amount if it attracts enough viewers.

    The hedge fund owners (of which Icahn was one) of these holding companies are always going around trying to find ways to profit from cash rich companies like Apple by milking the assets they acquired when the companies hit hard times. That's the whole point in acquiring the companies really. The back catalog of Bond movies isn't worth billions. Apple already has them in the store:

    https://itunes.apple.com/movie/spectre/id1042425776
    https://itunes.apple.com/movie/goldfinger/id303823225

    This is really just for a movie in 2019 and the potential to make TV shows. It might work as a TV series but the format is much better suited to movies and movie releases are few with a long time between them. Apple can license loads of streaming content for a few billion. That's HBO's and Netflix's entire budget.

    Apple has a lot of cash so that's not an issue and if their streaming service sold TV boxes, that's even more revenue. If it's permanent and exclusive for every future Bond movie, it's valuable to have. Maybe it's worth a couple of billion at most, I don't think it's worth getting into a bidding war over. It would just be nice to see a streaming service at this point. Content acquisitions can be done at any point in time.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 34 of 41
    tshapi said:
    Do people forget. When you buy James Bond for 5b did anybody think to ask what rights there buying? Is it just the movie rights? Or is it all the rights? Movies, tv, books, franchising, toys, games, amusement park, and so on.
    James Bond Land, brought to you by Apple. “It’s A Safe World After All!”™ 

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 35 of 41
    If accurate, I really don't understand the thinking behind this. These new guys need to think like a lean startup, not a flush with cash arm of Apple. That's a sure fire way to lose your shirt going into negotiations. But hey, it's not THEIR money, right? Jeez.
    Yes, please tell them how it’s done. rolleyes
  • Reply 36 of 41

    asdasd said:

    sog35 said:
    If accurate, I really don't understand the thinking behind this. These new guys need to think like a lean startup, not a flush with cash arm of Apple. That's a sure fire way to lose your shirt going into negotiations. But hey, it's not THEIR money, right? Jeez.
    act like a start up?  Why?

    Apple is already a decade behind Netflix.  

    Apple has $250 billion in cash.  At this point time is more valuable than money.  Its the same reason they bought Beats instead of growing their own streaming platform.

    I have no problem with Apple spending HUGE cash in growing their video platform.  

    As a shareholder I see them spending billions on content as an investment.
    This is an argument for buying NetFlix not starting with their own internal production team. Netflix know what they are doing. Of course, Apple cant really privilege Apple Users if they do buy Netflix, not with the existing contracts that non Apple customers have grandfathered in. 
    So what does Apple gain in this argument? a $10/mo streaming service? How does that help them 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 37 of 41
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    Daniel Craig certainly gave new life to a tired franchise. Prior to him it had become too stupid and cartoonish. 

    Depends on your viewpoint. All of my friends agree with me. We're first generation Bond fans who watched Connery and Moore in theaters. None of us like the vicious, thuggish Craig Bond.
    I have to agree the modern iteration is not even in the same genre as traditional movies and yes it comes count to taste I guess.  Bond, even if not in the books, became a phenomena by being tongue in cheek and family oriented with a smidgen of adult humor.  If you look back that formula was copied by many successful movie series such as Mission Impossible.  The Bourne series probably changed all that with the very gritty script that worked very well indeed and made the Bond formula look too silly by comparison.  

    I was of the school of thought that Apple might have been wise to buy Netflix early on but I was conflicted in that thought because Netflix may not have become as successful had Apple bought it.  We'll never know of course.

    I wonder if something like the English football league franchise might be a timely acquisition if possible, as soccer, as it's called here is with out doubt a growing market and already proven in every other country on earth.  Football is the most popular sport on the planet other than the USA and it is only a matter of time and a really friendly streaming service with PIP and all the extra abilities digital brings would a roast that would never stop dripping.  A movie franchise can come and go in popularity.


  • Reply 38 of 41
    MacPro said:
    Daniel Craig certainly gave new life to a tired franchise. Prior to him it had become too stupid and cartoonish. 

    Depends on your viewpoint. All of my friends agree with me. We're first generation Bond fans who watched Connery and Moore in theaters. None of us like the vicious, thuggish Craig Bond.
    I have to agree the modern iteration is not even in the same genre as traditional movies and yes it comes count to taste I guess.  Bond, even if not in the books, became a phenomena by being tongue in cheek and family oriented with a smidgen of adult humor.  If you look back that formula was copied by many successful movie series such as Mission Impossible.  The Bourne series probably changed all that with the very gritty script that worked very well indeed and made the Bond formula look too silly by comparison.  

    I was of the school of thought that Apple might have been wise to buy Netflix early on but I was conflicted in that thought because Netflix may not have become as successful had Apple bought it.  We'll never know of course.

    I wonder if something like the English football league franchise might be a timely acquisition if possible, as soccer, as it's called here is with out doubt a growing market and already proven in every other country on earth.  Football is the most popular sport on the planet other than the USA and it is only a matter of time and a really friendly streaming service with PIP and all the extra abilities digital brings would a roast that would never stop dripping.  A movie franchise can come and go in popularity.


    Without Reed Hastings at the helm, Netflix wouldn't have been fighting for it's life to survive. If Apple had bought them, boring family friendly fare would've been the result.
  • Reply 39 of 41
    MacPro said:
    Daniel Craig certainly gave new life to a tired franchise. Prior to him it had become too stupid and cartoonish. 

    Depends on your viewpoint. All of my friends agree with me. We're first generation Bond fans who watched Connery and Moore in theaters. None of us like the vicious, thuggish Craig Bond.
    I have to agree the modern iteration is not even in the same genre as traditional movies and yes it comes count to taste I guess.  Bond, even if not in the books, became a phenomena by being tongue in cheek and family oriented with a smidgen of adult humor.  If you look back that formula was copied by many successful movie series such as Mission Impossible.  The Bourne series probably changed all that with the very gritty script that worked very well indeed and made the Bond formula look too silly by comparison.  

    I was of the school of thought that Apple might have been wise to buy Netflix early on but I was conflicted in that thought because Netflix may not have become as successful had Apple bought it.  We'll never know of course.

    I wonder if something like the English football league franchise might be a timely acquisition if possible, as soccer, as it's called here is with out doubt a growing market and already proven in every other country on earth.  Football is the most popular sport on the planet other than the USA and it is only a matter of time and a really friendly streaming service with PIP and all the extra abilities digital brings would a roast that would never stop dripping.  A movie franchise can come and go in popularity.


    Without Reed Hastings at the helm, Netflix wouldn't have been fighting for it's life to survive. If Apple had bought them, boring family friendly fare would've been the result.
    Oh, so you can’t rent or buy R-rated content on Apple itunes? news to me. Are you sure?
  • Reply 40 of 41
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,106member
    Hollywood is awash with "me-too" productions. Comic books, bogeyman scare movies, and Part VIII of whatever silliness showed a slim profit. The future will look back and wonder if everyone in America has the artistic maturity of twelve year-olds. If Apple is dead set an aping somebody, why not HBO, Showtime, or other cable producers who have shown that it is possible to have artistic balls and still make a profit. 
    I so agree with this...as a shareholder I do not like the idea of Apple of following into the morass of media production.  It is a great way to lose a gazillion dollars with the generation of shite.  The only way it makes sense is in the service if an established production line like Apple Music.

    What about promoting amazing artists that merit more attention in the service of Apple Music?  Like an old school Ed Sullivan, American Bandstand or Soul Train?  How flipping cool would that be...

    It would help musicians out, build loyalty amoung artists, fans, consumers.  It would also occur at a fraction of the cost of a James Bond franchise...what a flipping waste.
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.