MGM Reportedly Wanted $600 Million for Streaming Rights to James Bond Film, No Time to Die

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,222
Points
113
no-time-to-die-james-bond-007-banner-1024x576.jpg
Image: MGM



Yesterday, we reported on the possibility that MGM’s latest James Bond film, No Time to Die, could premiere on Netflix or Apple TV+. Unfortunately for home theater fanatics, that doesn’t appear to be happening.



While discussions between the companies appear to have taken place, Variety is reporting that MGM wanted an eye-watering $600 million for the privilege of debuting No Time to Die on a streaming platform. Industry insider Drew McWeeny, who originally broke the news, did mention that the figure being tossed around was “insane” – but the number is still amusing, nonetheless.



Not surprisingly, neither Netflix nor...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
Amusing indeed.
Those 600m wouldn't translate into much for the streaming services.
Let alone if a temporary license. Perhaps if sold outright... Maybe.
 
If that's the price to make it exclusive to a streaming service (no box office release), or simultaneous to the box office release - then that plus some revenue sharing is probably about right.

If that's to stream some time after box office release, it's a bit high, as the box office and cooling off time are going to erode your potential audience draw.

A Bond film is good for about $500M+ at the box office, with some doing considerably better than that.

List of James Bond films - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
.
 
I have to agree. $600M seems a little low for exclusive rights to steam the movie IF the movie doesn't get released at the theaters or if it's able to stream before or during a box office release.

Didn't the last 3 bond movies bring in over $500M each?

I'd be interested to know what it would take to have ALL the bond movie exclusive rights for streaming.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
I have to agree. $600M seems a little low for exclusive rights to steam the movie IF the movie doesn't get released at the theaters or if it's able to stream before or during a box office release.

Didn't the last 3 bond movies bring in over $500M each?

I'd be interested to know what it would take to have ALL the bond movie exclusive rights for streaming.
Click to expand...
You can't ignore the fact that today we have a very different market than even a year ago. A JB movie might have been worth 600 million prior to covid, but currently I doubt it's worth even half of that.

Besides this one is poised to be a relative flop to begin with due to the rumors of it going woke.
 
Brian_B said:
A Bond film is good for about $500M+ at the box office, with some doing considerably better than that.
Click to expand...
My 2080TI was worth $1200 before 3080, but now it's only worth half or less. Prior to covid box office numbers won't be back for years if ever.
 
MadMummy76 said:
My 2080TI was worth $1200 before 3080, but now it's only worth half or less. Prior to covid box office numbers won't be back for years if ever.
Click to expand...

I liked your post but you are dealing with loss of tech value. Once the new one is out the old one instantly drops in value.
 
MadMummy76 said:
You can't ignore the fact that today we have a very different market than even a year ago. A JB movie might have been worth 600 million prior to covid, but currently I doubt it's worth even half of that.

Besides this one is poised to be a relative flop to begin with due to the rumors of it going woke.
Click to expand...

Well obviously can't make that money in the Box Office now if all the theaters are closed, but people still have money and they're still willing to spend said money on entertainment. The location to watch the film has simply moved from the Theaters to your living room. How many people would be willin' to shell out ~$5 - $10 (more or less) for a monthly subscription service to watch the new Bond film? How many people are still willing to pay a "Pay-per-view" stream of the film for $xx dollars? Making $600M or more off the film is still possible just not at the theaters.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Well obviously can't make that money in the Box Office now if all the theaters are closed, but people still have money and they're still willing to spend said money on entertainment. The location to watch the film has simply moved from the Theaters to your living room. How many people would be willin' to shell out ~$5 - $10 (more or less) for a monthly subscription service to watch the new Bond film? How many people are still willing to pay a "Pay-per-view" stream of the film for $xx dollars? Making $600M or more off the film is still possible just not at the theaters.
Click to expand...
Any word on how Mulan is doing?
 
I agree, the movie won't crack 300m gross and they know it. They want a clean 600m, yeah okay. I do keep forgetting the dollar is funny hyperinflated money for everyone except working people but jeez .
 
Grimlakin said:
I liked your post but you are dealing with loss of tech value. Once the new one is out the old one instantly drops in value.
Click to expand...
What once was worth X now is worth X/2 due to a change in circumstances. It doesn't matter what that change is.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Well obviously can't make that money in the Box Office now if all the theaters are closed, but people still have money and they're still willing to spend said money on entertainment. The location to watch the film has simply moved from the Theaters to your living room. How many people would be willin' to shell out ~$5 - $10 (more or less) for a monthly subscription service to watch the new Bond film? How many people are still willing to pay a "Pay-per-view" stream of the film for $xx dollars? Making $600M or more off the film is still possible just not at the theaters.
Click to expand...
You see, I don't think it is possible. At least not directly. If a movie premiers on a streaming service that gives a big boom to subscribers, but it does not translate to direct profits. Many who sign up also consider the fact that they get other things to watch as well. So even if someone watches JB on netflix that doesn't mean their entire $10 or whatever subscription fee that month can be attributable to the movie. And I doubt the movie would bring in 60 million new subscribers to netflix.

Of course if it's pay per view that's entirely another thing. But I personally would not pay for pay per view anything.
 
MadMummy76 said:
You see, I don't think it is possible. At least not directly. If a movie premiers on a streaming service that gives a big boom to subscribers, but it does not translate to direct profits. Many who sign up also consider the fact that they get other things to watch as well. So even if someone watches JB on netflix that doesn't mean their entire $10 or whatever subscription fee that month can be attributable to the movie. And I doubt the movie would bring in 60 million new subscribers to netflix.

Of course if it's pay per view that's entirely another thing. But I personally would not pay for pay per view anything.
Click to expand...

That just means it's not profitable for Netflix, who has already established a large user base, to purchase the rights for $600M dollars. Unless Netflix wants to dominate the streaming services and pay the $600M so another streaming service wont have a "one-up" on them.

Though, the only way to really make money, for Netflix, would be to sell the rights to watch/view the movie upon release. This goes against everything Netflix has done in the past so highly unlikely they'll do that. If they do, charging $30 like Disney did for Mulan just isn't practical. I doubt many people would pay that much just to stream a Bond film (or any film for that matter) at home. Something under $5 to be the first to view it on the other hand could make some money.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
That just means it's not profitable for Netflix, who has already established a large user base, to purchase the rights for $600M dollars. Unless Netflix wants to dominate the streaming services and pay the $600M so another streaming service wont have a "one-up" on them.

Though, the only way to really make money, for Netflix, would be to sell the rights to watch/view the movie upon release. This goes against everything Netflix has done in the past so highly unlikely they'll do that. If they do, charging $30 like Disney did for Mulan just isn't practical. I doubt many people would pay that much just to stream a Bond film (or any film for that matter) at home. Something under $5 to be the first to view it on the other hand could make some money.
Click to expand...
Well if you look at at it that way the creators might be able to make 600 million on it, If netflix or anyone else is willing to pay $600 million for a marketing stunt, but that cost will never be recouped. It's just not worth the investment IMO. It's too risky.
 
I don’t think the Mulan strategy was entirely misguided.
I could see charging a sliding scale - maybe it’s $30 for the first week and drops by $5/week.

Mulan isn’t worth $30 + sub to me, but to a mom with a house full of kids it might be cheap. Or to me once it gets down to $10 a few weeks later.. I might bite.

I guess what I am saying is that I can see charging something for time on the release - I don’t expect everything to just be dumped into the sub cost, or sub costs will go through the roof.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Disney was just showing others how NOT to do it. Haha

$30 for a "early bird watch" fee is absurd. If that price was sub $5, they'd be far better off.
Click to expand...
I paid something like $20 to stream the new Bill and Ted movie the week it released. Half the price of movie tickets, and I don’t need to spend $50 on a baby sitter? Sign me up!

If Mulan had stayed true to the animated film and if I thought the 4 year old would watch it without getting scared, I would happily pay $30 for that
 
If I can get a DVD for 10€ in 3-6 months (if it even takes that long these days) I will wait for that, cheaper and I can watch it as many times as I want.

Netflix has enough money to make movies for less and if they want to go realy big budget they could ask like a one time additional fee, but paying this much up front for something they may end up loosing money on? nah, maybe pay what it cost to make and give them part of the eventual profits maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top