Apple in talks to buy streaming rights to upcoming James Bond film 'No Time to Die'

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple TV may soon be the place to watch a long-delayed James Bond film, should the parent company decide to skip the film's theatrical release.

Apple in talks to buy streaming rights to upcoming Bond film 'No Time to Die'


Apple is said to be bidding on an upcoming James Bond flick, titled "No Time to Die," hoping to bring the movie exclusively to Apple TV+.

Earlier this year, Apple purchased Tom Hanks' World War II film, "Greyhound," when it was apparent that a theater release would be impossible.

The Bond franchise is owned by MGM, and according to Binged, the company likely feels pressure to sell the film to the highest bidder. Many would-be theater releases have taken to releasing films on streaming platforms in the wake of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to Apple, Netflix is said to be in the running to purchase the upcoming Bond film.

Apple TV+ has grown its lineup of content in its first year of operations to include cutting-edge documentaries, critically acclaimed children's programming, and Emmy-winning original series.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    fede777fede777 Posts: 13member
    Well... "exclusively" if you know what I mean.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 44
    M68000M68000 Posts: 725member
    “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. 
    ralphieNotoriousDEV
  • Reply 3 of 44
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    M68000 said:
    “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. 
    Look, Apple already has you learning what their service is. Looks like their plan is working.
    uraharalollivermatrix077watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 44
    mr lizardmr lizard Posts: 354member
    M68000 said:
    “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...
    randominternetpersonStrangeDaysJinTechlollivertmaybloggerblogmatrix077watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 44
    uraharaurahara Posts: 733member
    mr lizard said:
    M68000 said:
    “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. 
    lolliverwinstoner71dcgoowatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 44
    foregoneconclusionforegoneconclusion Posts: 2,685member
    Bond franchise is running on fumes...and that's the optimistic outlook.
    dewme
  • Reply 7 of 44
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,877member
    M68000 said:
    “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. 
    Yeah no, buddy, exclusive content isn't a monopoly. Best research how monopolies work. You can only buy a Whopper at Burger King, but you can go to plenty of other burger joints. Apple has numerous competitors in the space. 
    lolliverentropystmaybloggerblogmatrix077watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 44
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member
    "The Bond franchise is owned by MGM, and according to Binged, the company likely feels pressure to sell the film to the highest bidder."

    Thank you Binged for that insightful hypothesis.  Personally I always have a soft spot for third-lowest bid.
    sidricthevikinglolliverForumPostchristopher126entropysfirelockmatrix077watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 44
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member
    Bond franchise is running on fumes...and that's the optimistic outlook.
    uh huh.

    Global box office (top 5)
    1. Skyfall ($1.111 billion) - 2012
    2. Spectre ($879.6 million) - 2015
    3. Casino Royale (2006) ($594.4 million) - 2006
    4. Quantum of Solace ($591.7 million) - 2008
    5. Die Another Day ($431.9 million) - 2002
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbean/2020/04/18/all-26-james-bond-films-ranked-at-the-box-office/#1f38d8761804

    Those are some profitable fumes.


    n2macsNotoriousDEVuraharalolliverviclauyyctmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 44
    iOS_Guy80iOS_Guy80 Posts: 813member
    M68000 said:
    “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?
    lolliverchristopher126MacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 44
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    M68000 said:
    “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. 
    Are you even remotely aware that theater chains across the US are in serious danger of going bankrupt in the next quarter or so because there are no audiences willing to sit in theaters to watch movies anymore?
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 44
    foregoneconclusionforegoneconclusion Posts: 2,685member
    randominternetperson said: Those are some profitable fumes.
    Those numbers include global ticket sales. Apple would just be bidding on streaming and it's not like there's a guarantee that the streaming would be exclusive worldwide. It might be exclusive for certain territories. Bond isn't nearly as popular in the States as it used to be. Your link shows that inflation adjusted dollars put much older films like Goldfinger ('64) and Thunderball ('65) at the top of the heap for the U.S.
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 13 of 44
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    M68000 said:
    “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 may be bad for consumers, but there's absolutely nothing monopolistic about it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 44
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member
    randominternetperson said: Those are some profitable fumes.
    Those numbers include global ticket sales. Apple would just be bidding on streaming and it's not like there's a guarantee that the streaming would be exclusive worldwide. It might be exclusive for certain territories. Bond isn't nearly as popular in the States as it used to be. Your link shows that inflation adjusted dollars put much older films like Goldfinger ('64) and Thunderball ('65) at the top of the heap for the U.S.
    Don't move the goal post.  You said the James Bond franchise was running on fumes.  I pointed out that each of the Daniel Craig bond films out performed (after inflation) ever prior Bond film, and the last two cleared $800 million dollars.  If those are "fumes" I want some.  Fact: Skyfall was the second most successful movie in 2012 after only The Avengers.  And 2015's Spectre was a still respectable #7.
    edited October 2020 CloudTalkinNotoriousDEVlolliverentropystmaymatrix077watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 44
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,913member
    Sad the good movies can't be released in theaters. I have AppleTV+ but won't mind with face mask to go to theater to watch the Bond movie.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    XedXed Posts: 2,546member
    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.
    edited October 2020 mknelsonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 44
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 1,033member
    M68000 said:
    “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?
    lolliverchristopher126MacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 44
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    randominternetperson said:
    randominternetperson said: Those are some profitable fumes.
    Those numbers include global ticket sales. Apple would just be bidding on streaming and it's not like there's a guarantee that the streaming would be exclusive worldwide. It might be exclusive for certain territories. Bond isn't nearly as popular in the States as it used to be. Your link shows that inflation adjusted dollars put much older films like Goldfinger ('64) and Thunderball ('65) at the top of the heap for the U.S.
    Don't move the goal post.  You said the James Bond franchise was running on fumes.  I pointed out that each of the Daniel Craig bond films out performed (after inflation) ever prior Bond film, and the last two cleared $800 million dollars.  If those are "fumes" I want some.  Fact: Skyfall was the second most successful movie in 2012 after only The Avengers.  And 2015's Spectre was a still respectable #7.
    Besides Sean Connery, I feel the best Bond movies yet made are these recent Bond installments with Craig. He’s been an excellent actor for the series.
    williamhchristopher126bikerdudetmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 44
    foregoneconclusionforegoneconclusion Posts: 2,685member
    randominternetperson said: Don't move the goal post.  You said the James Bond franchise was running on fumes. 
    I was never assuming what you seem to be assuming:
    A. Streaming rights would be a direct equivalent to theater ticket sales
    B. Apple would have a global exclusive for streaming
  • Reply 20 of 44
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    M68000 said:
    “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. 
    Well, if you bothered to read the article you would have noticed that Netflix is also trying to buy the streaming rights in competition with Apple. Would you like to call Netflix's attempt monopolistic too? Or just Apple? Each will charge you a subscription fee to watch the movie you know. 

    Do you even know what a monopoly is or does it just sound good to you when Apple is involved? 

    The big question whether you will choose to respond to my questions. I’m guessing not.


    dave marshBeatswatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.