'No Time to Die' sale could have reached $600M

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
The upcoming James Bond film "No Time to Die" may not head to Apple TV or other streaming services for a premiere after all, but it seems studio MGM did explore the possibility of selling the movie with a $600 million price tag.

Daniel Craig in the trailer for 'No Time to Die'
Daniel Craig in the trailer for 'No Time to Die'


Reports surfaced in October that the repeatedly-delayed Bond movie "No Time to Die" was being shopped around streaming services for a potential sale, rather than delaying the film's release any further. In an update on Saturday, studio MGM has insisted the sale to Apple or any other streaming provider isn't happening.

"We do not comment on rumors. The film is not for sale," a spokesperson told Variety. "The film's release has been postponed until April 2021 in order to preserve the theatrical experience for moviegoers."

Report sources claim a potential sale was explored, with MGM interested in such an offer, but only at a high price. Insiders suggest the deal would have cost the eventual buyer roughly $600 million, which was apparently too high for streaming services to undertake.

While seemingly quite high, streaming services have been known to pay out considerable sums for content. For example, Apple's purchase of Tom Hanks epic "Greyhound" was reportedly to the tune of $70 million.

The high price is likely to have been attributed to the perceived strength of the James Bond brand, as well as a need to recoup the costs of production. The film is said to have cost in excess of $250 million to produce, though that was offset by promotional partnerships with Land Rover, Omega, and Heineken.

It is highly probable that those companies wouldn't be keen on a streaming-only release for the film, given their marketing efforts. If the promotional partners wanted a partial refund on what was paid to MGM, the studio would have to factor that into an eventual sale, as well as having the firms agree on such a sale to begin with.

As movie studios are continuing to feel pressure to offload their properties to streaming services due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic causing issues for theater revenue, it is likely more deals such as that of "Greyhound" will take place for the foreseeable future.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,087member
    LOL.  Hollywood still full of themselves

    Unfortunately for them, the whole model and nexus of power may have been permanently changed 
    elijahgrazorpit
  • Reply 2 of 23
    $600M is insane for a movie purchase since you will never earn anywhere near that amount back.  Fortunately, Apple is too smart to pay such a ridiculous amount in this streaming war.  
    razorpit
  • Reply 3 of 23
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,275member
    Cynical comments aside, there is no question that a) the Bond franchise still attracts a very large worldwide audience and b) any streaming service that offered it as an exclusive would have seen a very large tick upwards in subscribers. I concur that the price was too high for a single Bond film, though if the existing library of Bond films was attached to that price it instantly turns into a bargain.
    Beatsgeorge kaplanronn
  • Reply 4 of 23
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    The price is set for fools who have too much money. 
  • Reply 5 of 23
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    Appleinsider has become stupid the way it changed to post comment. We spend our valuable time providing good comments for the benefits of web site's clicks. the problem is I am already logged in, read the article and when I go write comment to post comment; it displays weird window(read more on forums) which deletes my comment. It is waste of time. Appleinsider, fix it...Otherwise there is a Macrumors,9to5mac,Macworld,etc sites for Apple fans to read on Apple related breakout information and comment.
    Beats
  • Reply 6 of 23
    "$600 million, which was apparently too high"

    LOL.  Ya think?  How much did Apple pay for NeXT back in the day?
  • Reply 7 of 23
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    I'm on the fence. The last Bond movie grossed about that much and the residual effect will make more money especially with a new service like Apple.
    ronn
  • Reply 8 of 23
    chasm said:
    Cynical comments aside, there is no question that a) the Bond franchise still attracts a very large worldwide audience and b) any streaming service that offered it as an exclusive would have seen a very large tick upwards in subscribers. I concur that the price was too high for a single Bond film, though if the existing library of Bond films was attached to that price it instantly turns into a bargain.
    This is the leading candidate for best read of this situation. 

    There is a LOT we don’t know about the financing of this film, which is usually elaborately structured. The story mentions tie-ins with Land Rover, etc, and maybe that money would need to be repaid if the film doesn’t receive wide international release. 

    Likewise, it is unstated if the film is presold to pay-tv services (eg, HBO) anywhere in the world. Those rights often kick in a year after the theatrical release, so a movie contractually bound for HBO, Canal+, etc is less valuable than legitimate world exclusive rights.  

    Where MGM may be losing leverage is a shrinking number of viable movie screens in North America and Europe. AMC (#1 in US) is said to have enough cash to last 2020, while the British company which owns Regal (#2 in US) just shut those theaters down for the remainder of this year. These companies have expensive lease payments to make on their locations and no software to program. Bond was moved from Spring 2020 to Fall 2020 to Thanksgiving, and now to Spring 2021. There may be legitimate concerns how many screens they will have access to by next Spring. Selling now could be selling high if they have no pathway to show the film in the massive exposure these films need (thousands of screens in the opening couple of weeks to get the highest, fastest return). 

    That rumored $600M may well be a rumor started by forces working for MGM to set a baseline for bids. I can see $200M to $250M being a reasonable price for Apple if the film is truly an exclusive, as it brings more eyes to ATV+ and provides greater sampling of the other shows on the service. With a year of ATV+ given away with iPhones, it might also help help sell an incremental number of phones. 

    But Apple is focused on grow its non-iPhone business, and the news stories that would result from a 007 deal might be worth tens of millions in publicity for ATV+ in 2021. Along with a new season of “Morning Show”, Emmy nods for shows like “Ted Lasso”, and an Oscar nomination for Bill Murray in “On the Rocks”, next year could be a big step forward for ATV+. James Bond would be an accelerator. 
  • Reply 9 of 23
    Yawn......
    elijahgSpamSandwichrazorpit
  • Reply 10 of 23
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    larryjw said:
    The price is set for fools who have too much money. 
    As opposed to the fools who don't have enough money? It's always the fool who complains about someone with "too much money". I suspect anybody with too much money ultimately is nobody's fool. Methinks though doth whine too much.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    chasm said:
    Cynical comments aside, there is no question that a) the Bond franchise still attracts a very large worldwide audience and b) any streaming service that offered it as an exclusive would have seen a very large tick upwards in subscribers. I concur that the price was too high for a single Bond film, though if the existing library of Bond films was attached to that price it instantly turns into a bargain.
    This is the leading candidate for best read of this situation. 

    There is a LOT we don’t know about the financing of this film, which is usually elaborately structured. The story mentions tie-ins with Land Rover, etc, and maybe that money would need to be repaid if the film doesn’t receive wide international release. 

    Likewise, it is unstated if the film is presold to pay-tv services (eg, HBO) anywhere in the world. Those rights often kick in a year after the theatrical release, so a movie contractually bound for HBO, Canal+, etc is less valuable than legitimate world exclusive rights.  

    Where MGM may be losing leverage is a shrinking number of viable movie screens in North America and Europe. AMC (#1 in US) is said to have enough cash to last 2020, while the British company which owns Regal (#2 in US) just shut those theaters down for the remainder of this year. These companies have expensive lease payments to make on their locations and no software to program. Bond was moved from Spring 2020 to Fall 2020 to Thanksgiving, and now to Spring 2021. There may be legitimate concerns how many screens they will have access to by next Spring. Selling now could be selling high if they have no pathway to show the film in the massive exposure these films need (thousands of screens in the opening couple of weeks to get the highest, fastest return). 

    That rumored $600M may well be a rumor started by forces working for MGM to set a baseline for bids. I can see $200M to $250M being a reasonable price for Apple if the film is truly an exclusive, as it brings more eyes to ATV+ and provides greater sampling of the other shows on the service. With a year of ATV+ given away with iPhones, it might also help help sell an incremental number of phones. 

    But Apple is focused on grow its non-iPhone business, and the news stories that would result from a 007 deal might be worth tens of millions in publicity for ATV+ in 2021. Along with a new season of “Morning Show”, Emmy nods for shows like “Ted Lasso”, and an Oscar nomination for Bill Murray in “On the Rocks”, next year could be a big step forward for ATV+. James Bond would be an accelerator. 
    $200M would likely be a "bargain" (given that it cost more than that to make the film), but $600M is insane.  For half that, Apple could literally make any movie imaginable with the most bankable director, screen writer, and star.

    Having said that, we have no idea how much a mega hit would be worth to Apple or other streaming services.  And would these streaming rights include China (which is now the biggest movie market)?

    As others have said $600M is a made up number that MGM is floating to make any other offer sound reasonable.  They rather people have that number in their heads than the $70M that Apple paid for the Tom Hanks movies.
    razorpit
  • Reply 12 of 23
    uraharaurahara Posts: 733member
    The thing is that in April 2021 the situation with “moviegoing” might not improve by much. 
    ronnrandominternetperson
  • Reply 13 of 23
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    larryjw said:
    The price is set for fools who have too much money. 
    I expect the price is based on an anticipated outcome for ticket sales, this movie could have easily made this much in the cinema. It's a different business model though, every viewer in the cinema model pays per view, streaming is typically per month, although they could charge per rental if they wanted. A monthly budget is hard to apply to a single viewing. For movies commissioned by the streaming service provider, it's easier to increase budget because they only have to cover the costs and get a permanent exclusive. The Bond producers want someone to cover the costs and the profit they would normally make and the streaming providers don't just want to break even.

    The streaming service would pretty much have to charge for the rental on top of the normal subscription. I think streaming services would benefit from having a hybrid model of per-view purchases and content streamed as part of the subscription but all baked into a subscription payment. Netflix will be nearing 200m subscribers, if they could convince half the subscribers to pay $10 to add the movie to their library, they'd recoup $1b.

    It would probably be best to take the payments in advance to combat piracy so advertise the movie availability on a certain day and have people prepay to be able to view it. Once it passes a certain threshold of payments (can be deferred payments), it can be greenlit for the premiere, if it doesn't pass a certain threshold, they can choose to cancel the launch and the deferred payments. Like a crowdfunded premiere, not much different from premium sports events.

    The idea mentioned of bundling streaming rights to every Bond movie for a period of time would make the deal more compelling and would be a good setup for Christmas. It's still a lot for a streaming service not charging per view because $600m is the break-even price for the streaming service so I think it would only be feasible if the streaming service was willing to charge extra per view.

    Potentially they could split it between the services so Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Hulu pay a fraction each the same way multiple cinema chains host the same movie but there's not a huge incentive to pay out over $100m for non-exclusives. Hopefully the cinema business model can be adapted to streaming because there's a void of premium content and it just needs a way of ensuring the revenue expectations are met.
    ronn
  • Reply 14 of 23
    wood1208 said: Otherwise there is a Macrumors,9to5mac,Macworld,etc sites for Apple fans to read on Apple related breakout information and comment.
    9to5Mac actively blacklists people who question some of their editorializing about Apple. They use Disqus and have some sort of technique for making the comments disappear after you log out or leave the site. It will register in your Disqus account as having been posted (rather than just pending), but it won't be visible in the comments section on 9to5Mac and you will never receive any responses or thumbs up/down for the comments posted. They won't do anything about it if you contact them directly either, so it's something they're fine with.
    randominternetpersonrazorpit
  • Reply 15 of 23
    Marvin said:
    larryjw said:
    The price is set for fools who have too much money. 
    I expect the price is based on an anticipated outcome for ticket sales, this movie could have easily made this much in the cinema.
    Not really, no.

    Someone earlier posted the global ticket sales for the last few Bond films, and none approached that figure. In addition, ticket sales is not what the Studio earns, since it splits that amount (in varying degrees) with theater owners, distribution companies, and state governments.

    $600M isn’t relevant to the history of the Craig-era Bond films. And as I stated before, with the theater distribution model in complete chaos, the likelihood for a big theatrical payday for the Bond producers now is very slim, even if they wait until Spring (“Tenet”, which should have been a $400M film in the US, returned like a very successful rom-com, with theaters in NY and CA unavailable, and theaters in other states open to limited crowds). But while they wait, the various companies with equity stake in the film have bills to pay but no income from the film.

    IF there is a decision by MGM to sell the film to a streaming company, it will be for significantly more than the $70M Paramount received for “Greyhound”, but nothing near $600M—those are the musings of someone huffing something.
    edited October 2020 randominternetperson
  • Reply 16 of 23
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Marvin said:
    larryjw said:
    The price is set for fools who have too much money. 
    I expect the price is based on an anticipated outcome for ticket sales, this movie could have easily made this much in the cinema.
    Not really, no.

    Someone earlier posted the global ticket sales for the last few Bond films, and none approached that figure. In addition, ticket sales is not what the Studio earns, since it splits that amount (in varying degrees) with theater owners, distribution companies, and state governments.
    Skyfall is listed as $1.1b revenue, $200m production budget. Spectre $879m revenue, $300m budget:

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary
    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Spectre#tab=summary

    The following has inflation adjusted figures for the franchise:

    https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm

    It's true the revenue is split with the distributors. The following site referenced some distributors as saying it's typically close to 50% but depends on the movie success:

    https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/
    with the theater distribution model in complete chaos, the likelihood for a big theatrical payday for the Bond producers now is very slim, even if they wait until Spring (“Tenet”, which should have been a $400M film in the US, returned like a very successful rom-com, with theaters in NY and CA unavailable, and theaters in other states open to limited crowds). But while they wait, the various companies with equity stake in the film have bills to pay but no income from the film.

    IF there is a decision by MGM to sell the film to a streaming company, it will be for significantly more than the $70M Paramount received for “Greyhound”, but nothing near $600M—those are the musings of someone huffing something.
    The movie had a production budget of $250m, likely $100m marketing budget so if they sell below around $350m, they will lose money on the movie.

    $600m seems like the kind of performance of Skyfall under normal circumstances without the theatre distribution fee. They certainly wouldn't be able to achieve that releasing to cinemas now or in the near future and I don't expect this particular movie would perform like Skyfall.

    With the right distribution method I think that they could make that kind of money with a digital release though. I don't see why 100 million people worldwide wouldn't be prepared to pay $5-10 to see this on streaming networks.

    The streaming networks wouldn't even have to pay upfront, they could just market it on their sites. They could have a Digital Premiere banner for the movie with a button "add to library for $5-10" and people would add it. Once they cross around 35m sales, that's the budget covered and whatever comes after that, they can negotiate revenue splits.

    Blockbuster movies like this need a way to allow viewers to directly buy viewings outside of the usual subscription.
    ronnwwchris
  • Reply 17 of 23
    The theatrical experience will never go away.  It is the most profitable way to release movies for Hollywood.  Cinemas will prevail.  
  • Reply 18 of 23
    Skyfall made $1.111 billion and Spectre made $879.6 million. Selling it for $600 million would be cheap considering it’s Daniel Craig’s last movie and has so much hype behind it.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    Marvin said:
    With the right distribution method I think that they could make that kind of money with a digital release though. I don't see why 100 million people worldwide wouldn't be prepared to pay $5-10 to see this on streaming networks.

    The streaming networks wouldn't even have to pay upfront, they could just market it on their sites. They could have a Digital Premiere banner for the movie with a button "add to library for $5-10" and people would add it. Once they cross around 35m sales, that's the budget covered and whatever comes after that, they can negotiate revenue splits.

    Blockbuster movies like this need a way to allow viewers to directly buy viewings outside of the usual subscription.
    I agree with you on that last point.  It's clear to me that the Mulan/Trolls model is most likely approach.  With Mulan, you paid $30 to buy the video.  (I think the Trolls one was just a time-limited rental, but I could be wrong.)  That's not unreasonable and isn't out of line with price of non-discounted Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital movies.  However, that also means that the studios don't get to "double dip" like have been doing.  A family of 4 spends $50-$60+ to see the movie in the theater and then spends another $10-$30 on the "disk" and then probably ends of watching the movie on streaming while the disc sits in a drawer.  The Mulan model "costs" the studio a ton of money compared to the prior model.  But it's still much better than if the movie goes straight to streaming (like the Tom Hanks movie--which I enjoyed but I wouldn't have paid extra to buy).

    As to counting how many "people" would buy/rent a movie, remember that that "households" buy/rent movies at home whereas individuals sit in movie theaters. 

    Spectre had $200 million domestic box office (and 3.4 times that overseas).  So that probably translates to 13 million butts in seats and 12 million unique individuals or 4-5 million households domestically.  At $30/household, that's $120-$150 million.  And that assumes that everyone who would have seen it in the theater would buy the streaming at a premium rather than waiting a while for it to show up on non-premium streaming.  There's big money to be made, but it's likely significantly less than the pre-Covid hay day.
    george kaplan
  • Reply 20 of 23
    Marvin said:
    Marvin said:
    larryjw said:
    The price is set for fools who have too much money. 
    I expect the price is based on an anticipated outcome for ticket sales, this movie could have easily made this much in the cinema.
    Not really, no.

    Someone earlier posted the global ticket sales for the last few Bond films, and none approached that figure. In addition, ticket sales is not what the Studio earns, since it splits that amount (in varying degrees) with theater owners, distribution companies, and state governments.
    Skyfall is listed as $1.1b revenue, $200m production budget. Spectre $879m revenue, $300m budget:

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary
    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Spectre#tab=summary

    The following has inflation adjusted figures for the franchise:

    https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm

    It's true the revenue is split with the distributors. The following site referenced some distributors as saying it's typically close to 50% but depends on the movie success:

    https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/
    with the theater distribution model in complete chaos, the likelihood for a big theatrical payday for the Bond producers now is very slim, even if they wait until Spring (“Tenet”, which should have been a $400M film in the US, returned like a very successful rom-com, with theaters in NY and CA unavailable, and theaters in other states open to limited crowds). But while they wait, the various companies with equity stake in the film have bills to pay but no income from the film.

    IF there is a decision by MGM to sell the film to a streaming company, it will be for significantly more than the $70M Paramount received for “Greyhound”, but nothing near $600M—those are the musings of someone huffing something.
    The movie had a production budget of $250m, likely $100m marketing budget so if they sell below around $350m, they will lose money on the movie.

    $600m seems like the kind of performance of Skyfall under normal circumstances without the theatre distribution fee. They certainly wouldn't be able to achieve that releasing to cinemas now or in the near future and I don't expect this particular movie would perform like Skyfall.
    First of all, very interesting story, thanks for the link. It helps to serve up one of the more misunderstood parts of the film business. That article was written in the UK, where there is an off-the-top governmental tax. I know of no such tax in the US, though individual states may impose them. China apparently has a vicious tax on tickets for films shown in China. The point is, there is no one-size-fits-all answer when looking at a film like a Bond movie which is usually a global phenomenon.

    MGM isn’t a studio, in the way Paramount or Universal are film production companies. It owns the rights to a few franchises (notably the Bond and Rocky movies). With Bond, MGM has a partnership with Sony Pictures, dating back to some litigation some years back (in Hollywood, just about every business relationship has its origin in prior litigation, it seems). Distribution rights are auctioned off for different parts of the world to various companies (the concept of “pre-sale”), which helps insulate the producers from possible financial issues during the making of the film—the producers getting a cut up front, and the distributors are assuming a portion of the risk in return for larger % of the take.

    Then there is the fact the Bond films are produced by the children of Harry Broccoli, not MGM itself, and there are monies owed there.

    Money is borrowed to finance the film, and interest accrues, regardless of whether or not the film is playing somewhere. If the film companies don’t have faith the theaters will be in robust health and capable of lighting several thousand screens in the US alone, then they may want to pull the ripcord now and make the best deal possible.

    I imagine MGM needs to reimburse distributors for money advanced if the film rights are sold to digital distribution. But at some point, the company may be facing taking much less than a dollar for a dollar’s worth of film equity and writing off the losses. Because MGM didn’t “earn” $600M off Skyfall, once all other parties were compensated. Since that figure represented the total efforts of hundreds of participants globally, a company like Apple which is NOT global (ATV+ is in a number of countries and languages, but is not global, just as Netflix isn’t) wouldn’t reap that kind of return on its own.

    Maybe you’re right and MGM goes the Mulan route and charge $30 per household to get some revenue back from the investment. Doubtful they’d get 20M people globally to pay that kind of money (not possible in India, China, etc), but they might get $100M or more. A lump sale to Netflix or Apple for $200M or $250M might be a preferable outcome.
    edited October 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.