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

The only way to make any real money streaming a movie such as this is going to be pay per view. That is the only model which can charge enough to have any chance of recouping the initial investment. In the case of $600m no service would be able to recoup that and it would end up a massive loss.

For people bringing up how much Bond movies make in the theater, that's a very different situation. Theaters have captive audiences. Each person has to buy a ticket ranging in varying amounts depending on the theater and the location. Pay per view does not have the captive audience limitations. If you can fit twenty people in a room to watch it at someone's home and it costs $20 to rent it, it's still only $20. It's unlikely each of those twenty people would have seen the movie in the theater but there would be a good chance that three to five of them would have. At $10-$15 per ticket you're looking at anywhere from $30-$75 in ticket sales which is a lot more than that single $20 rental.

Pay per view in a scenario such as this will result in revenues a fraction of what you would see in the theater. It's a losing proposition for any service which would touch it.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Pay per view in a scenario such as this will result in revenues a fraction of what you would see in the theater. It's a losing proposition for any service which would touch it.
Click to expand...
Unless your new and looking at it as a loss leader to build up your subscription numbers and audience.

Its not like Apple couldn’t afford it if they really wanted it. They even got the Beatles in the end
 
SmokeRngs said:
The only way to make any real money streaming a movie such as this is going to be pay per view. That is the only model which can charge enough to have any chance of recouping the initial investment. In the case of $600m no service would be able to recoup that and it would end up a massive loss.

For people bringing up how much Bond movies make in the theater, that's a very different situation. Theaters have captive audiences. Each person has to buy a ticket ranging in varying amounts depending on the theater and the location. Pay per view does not have the captive audience limitations. If you can fit twenty people in a room to watch it at someone's home and it costs $20 to rent it, it's still only $20. It's unlikely each of those twenty people would have seen the movie in the theater but there would be a good chance that three to five of them would have. At $10-$15 per ticket you're looking at anywhere from $30-$75 in ticket sales which is a lot more than that single $20 rental.

Pay per view in a scenario such as this will result in revenues a fraction of what you would see in the theater. It's a losing proposition for any service which would touch it.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I don't think, if priced right, for the right movie, that streaming a movie at home wouldn't generate as much revenue in ticket sales as the box office. Just look at how much revenue the UFC fights have started to bring in. Well over $500M and let's be honest. The number of people who care to watch a fight is a lot less than those who'd not only spend a fraction of a UFC PPV fight, but willing to watch it at home.
 
Brian_B said:
Unless your new and looking at it as a loss leader to build up your subscription numbers and audience.

Its not like Apple couldn’t afford it if they really wanted it. They even got the Beatles in the end
Click to expand...
The Beatles were never exclusive to a single streaming platform. There was a time when you could only purchase the digital albums through iTunes, but that time has long since passed.
 
Armenius said:
The Beatles were never exclusive to a single streaming platform. There was a time when you could only purchase the digital albums through iTunes, but that time has long since passed.
Click to expand...
I was referring to back when Jobs first snagged them for iTunes, that was the first time Apple Records allowed digital distribution and following a long running lawsuit between the two Apples. The Beatles were a long running holdout to digital
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
I have to disagree. I don't think, if priced right, for the right movie, that streaming a movie at home wouldn't generate as much revenue in ticket sales as the box office. Just look at how much revenue the UFC fights have started to bring in. Well over $500M and let's be honest. The number of people who care to watch a fight is a lot less than those who'd not only spend a fraction of a UFC PPV fight, but willing to watch it at home.
Click to expand...
UFC has been pay for view for a long time and that's the standard there. It's also very different from a movie. UFC was never in the theaters as an exclusive like movies. It's also a live event which is very different from a movie release in that it's an immediate, one time event.

Any movie expected to make money was always released in the theater first and then to physical medium and later to cable networks such as HBO or Showtime originally and now to streaming services instead. For movies the majority of the money was made while in the theater during an exclusivity period in which the studios took the vast majority of the money for ticket sales.

A movie streaming through pay per view is a very different animal than a live event such as UFC. You have one chance to watch the UFC fight live and there is no such thing as a live viewing of a movie. You can watch it at any time in the future and not really miss out on anything.
 
SmokeRngs said:
UFC has been pay for view for a long time and that's the standard there. It's also very different from a movie. UFC was never in the theaters as an exclusive like movies. It's also a live event which is very different from a movie release in that it's an immediate, one time event.

Any movie expected to make money was always released in the theater first and then to physical medium and later to cable networks such as HBO or Showtime originally and now to streaming services instead. For movies the majority of the money was made while in the theater during an exclusivity period in which the studios took the vast majority of the money for ticket sales.

A movie streaming through pay per view is a very different animal than a live event such as UFC. You have one chance to watch the UFC fight live and there is no such thing as a live viewing of a movie. You can watch it at any time in the future and not really miss out on anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah only you're forgetting one thing now. You can't go to a movie theater to watch a movie anymore. They're closed down. You want to see the movie as soon as possible, you've gotta stream it. Those who will wait for it to come to subscription bases streaming and/or physical media would have done the same vs going to a theater as well.\

The money is there. People will pay. You just gotta figure out how to price it just right.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Yeah only you're forgetting one thing now. You can't go to a movie theater to watch a movie anymore. They're closed down. You want to see the movie as soon as possible, you've gotta stream it. Those who will wait for it to come to subscription bases streaming and/or physical media would have done the same vs going to a theater as well.\

The money is there. People will pay. You just gotta figure out how to price it just right.
Click to expand...
Regal are the only ones shut down, at least in my area. AMC and smaller chains are all still open.
 
I didn't know that MGM itself was worth $600 million. They have circled the bankruptcy drain so many times in the last 30 years.
 
Dan_D said:
Not at all. MGM has been swirling down the drain for several years.
Click to expand...

Well 3 years ago, according to the Wikipedia MGM Holdings has $4.2 billion dollars worth of assets and $3.2 billion dollars in total equity. If someone was to buy MGM Holdings they'd be paying over $1 billion dollars for it. So, maybe not "worth billions" with an "s" but definitely worth a billion.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Yeah only you're forgetting one thing now. You can't go to a movie theater to watch a movie anymore. They're closed down. You want to see the movie as soon as possible, you've gotta stream it. Those who will wait for it to come to subscription bases streaming and/or physical media would have done the same vs going to a theater as well.\

The money is there. People will pay. You just gotta figure out how to price it just right.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if you can see a movie in a theater right now or not. Movies are not limited time live releases like UFC. UFC fights have a shelf life which is hours. A movie isn't even close to that.

Movies run in theaters for weeks or months and are then released on physical media and streaming in most cases. There isn't anywhere near the same immediacy to see a movie as with a live event.

Also considering the pain movie studios are in right now due to the fact that they aren't making millions and billions on theater receipts the money they want for streaming rights for a single movie is moronic. They're not going to get theater level receipts from movies through streaming no matter what they do and to demand it will only hurt them in the long run.

Theaters have been around for decades and continue to survive. I've been hearing about the demise of movie theaters for at least a couple of decades now. It's always "just a few years away" when the "home theater" will replace movie theaters. Market forces have proven those predictions wrong year after year. There are multiple draws to theaters and one of the biggest is exclusivity and an experience. Streaming through a service or a pay per view is nowhere near the same thing. We already know this because pay per view has been around for a long time for movies, including with streaming, and never has it even remotely seen the revenues or profits of the theater.

If selling exclusive streaming rights or pay per view rights to movies was anywhere near as profitable as the theater we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would have already been done. Instead we've seen studio after studio postpone, postpone and postpone movie after movie. If the money was in streaming and pay per view that wouldn't be happening.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Theaters have been around for decades and continue to survive. I've been hearing about the demise of movie theaters for at least a couple of decades now. It's always "just a few years away" when the "home theater" will replace movie theaters. Market forces have proven those predictions wrong year after year. There are multiple draws to theaters and one of the biggest is exclusivity and an experience.
Click to expand...
COVID-19 wasn't around during the last few decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top