I‘m very curious about as to whether or not we‘ll get a little something for the initial release date of April 2nd like a short movie clip or sorts... ?:)
I wonder if a cinema could be hired and agree to screen a blu-ray or stream? Aren't the 4K laser projection cinemas these days just projecting a digital file anyway?
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
Some buildings (schools, cultural centers etc) have auditoriums With video cannons and other equipment needed show a movie. As far as I know it wouldn't be illegal to show a movie in such places
Some buildings (schools, cultural centers etc) have auditoriums With video cannons and other equipment needed show a movie. As far as I know it wouldn't be illegal to show a movie in such places
In a lot of places it would be, or at least it would be to sell more than a couple tickets.
I wonder if a cinema could be hired and agree to screen a blu-ray or stream? Aren't the 4K laser projection cinemas these days just projecting a digital file anyway?
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
Not arguing with you, just genuinely curious what exactly is illegal about it?
I wonder if a cinema could be hired and agree to screen a blu-ray or stream? Aren't the 4K laser projection cinemas these days just projecting a digital file anyway?
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
Not arguing with you, just genuinely curious what exactly is illegal about it?
There are certain licenses involved with on demand and dvd ownership that prevent public performances. There are numerous cases where a bar would pay for a pay per view sporting event and show it to its patrons. The bars got sued or fined by the FCC.
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
Not arguing with you, just genuinely curious what exactly is illegal about it?
There are certain licenses involved with on demand and dvd ownership that prevent public performances. There are numerous cases where a bar would pay for a pay per view sporting event and show it to its patrons. The bars got sued or fined by the FCC.
I wonder if a cinema could be hired and agree to screen a blu-ray or stream? Aren't the 4K laser projection cinemas these days just projecting a digital file anyway?
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
It's not illegal if it's for me and my pals. I wasn't talking about hiring the cinema and screening it for Joe Public, it's a private party.
I wonder if a cinema could be hired and agree to screen a blu-ray or stream? Aren't the 4K laser projection cinemas these days just projecting a digital file anyway?
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
It's not illegal if it's for me and my pals. I wasn't talking about hiring the cinema and screening it for Joe Public, it's a private party.
I would suggest watching at home with a few pals would be fine. Hiring a public (albeit privately owned) place and screening to more than a few would be illegal.
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
It's not illegal if it's for me and my pals. I wasn't talking about hiring the cinema and screening it for Joe Public, it's a private party.
I would suggest watching at home with a few pals would be fine. Hiring a public (albeit privately owned) place and screening to more than a few would be illegal.
I can see where this discussion could go. Let me save everyone a lot of unnecessary posts, and go full Joseph Darlington.
"I apologize. I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
you know theres a Simpsons episode on this very topic, where Homer holds a backyard movie screening for all his closest friends and gets busted by the FBI?
and the movie they try to watch is ... the latest James Bond: Yesterday Never Tomorrows!!! Steal This Episode S25E09 January 5, 2014
(also Lenny and Carl give an excellent review of Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond in the same episode)
_____________________________________________
But I see a logical error in the above argument:
If the theatre owner were willing to open the theatre for a one time private showing, surely he'd be ready to open the theatre for regular screenings that would actually make real money?
He'd be charging you at least as much for the space rental as he would be forgoing from regular ticket sales.
It's not illegal if it's for me and my pals. I wasn't talking about hiring the cinema and screening it for Joe Public, it's a private party.
I would suggest watching at home with a few pals would be fine. Hiring a public (albeit privately owned) place and screening to more than a few would be illegal.
I can see where this discussion could go. Let me save everyone a lot of unnecessary posts, and go full Joseph Darlington.
"I apologize. I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
Phew, did it just in time...
Why apologize? We don't *care* if you do it, just letting you know why it's illegal and why no theater owner will agree to it. Exhibitors have to license the film from the distributor, period. Repertory screening outlets who screen privately-owned 35mm prints of 35-year-old movies are still required to get clearance from the film's copyright holder, whether 6 people or 600 show up.
I think you should do it, actually. Send us the address and time.
Guys... if theaters are closed in the fall on account of strict social distancing, nobody is going to be packing an auditorium to create a makeshift theater...
This movie will either get released as planned, or we’ll all be watching it at home. They are mutually exclusive. My vote is for streaming because I don’t believe theaters will be open in the fall, and I don’t want to wait another 6 months just to find out I have to wait another 6 months. The current thinking is this will recede in the early summer and then come back in the late fall/winter for a second wave. That timing is not ideal. EON needs to be proactive to protect the financial viability of the film and the franchise.
I read a bit from a Lea Seydoux interview. I'm not sure if I want to see the movie now. I've never been this up and down on a Bond movie before. I know I read something about them filming multiple scenes for the ending. Which concerned me. But if Lea is talking about being emotional there are only two possible endings we could get.
Whatever the case, I'll probably be more happy with the reboot anyway as Spectre was the ending point I was pleased with for Daniel Craig's run of Bond films. If No Time to Die is bad, I'll be fine with owning Casino Royale and Spectre and calling it quits there. Just like The World is Not Enough was Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film for me. I'll never watch Die Another Day again.
I was thinking.. at least since “Skyfall” , I have paid at least $75 to a) see the films in the theater (with wife and three kids) and b) to buy the blue ray 3 or 4 months later.
I had every intention of doing the same for “NTTD”.
So I’d be willing to pay $75 now for a digital copy, if doing so came with a ticket to see the film in the theater when that day comes. As much as the five of us would have loved to see it on the big screen initially, we could settle for watching on the 65” 4K home theater. I would probably be the only one of us to see it again at the theater, but if my wife wanted to come, EON would get another $13 from me!
The biggest concern with this, would be the aforementioned piracy issue.
I read a bit from a Lea Seydoux interview. I'm not sure if I want to see the movie now. I've never been this up and down on a Bond movie before. I know I read something about them filming multiple scenes for the ending. Which concerned me. But if Lea is talking about being emotional there are only two possible endings we could get.
Whatever the case, I'll probably be more happy with the reboot anyway as Spectre was the ending point I was pleased with for Daniel Craig's run of Bond films. If No Time to Die is bad, I'll be fine with owning Casino Royale and Spectre and calling it quits there. Just like The World is Not Enough was Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film for me. I'll never watch Die Another Day again.
It should be completly legal to show any movie (even series) in cinemas as long as you don't sell tickets for the screening as a theater owner, if you invite some friends for a private screening it should be no problem at all.
of course there are some tricks as a theatre-owner to earn some money anyway: if you want to visit that screening you have to buy a voucher for eating/drinking about £8 or something
Yes, the myriad loopholes and ways around charging admission is why it's illegal to screen a movie in public - even "for free" - without licensing it from the distributor for public exhibition.
Yes, the myriad loopholes and ways around charging admission is why it's illegal to screen a movie in public - even "for free" - without licensing it from the distributor for public exhibition.
This is correct. You can show it at a home cinema if you want to. I know someone with too much money who has one of those, complete with a concession stand.
I would suggest watching at home with a few pals would be fine. Hiring a public (albeit privately owned) place and screening to more than a few would be illegal.
I can see where this discussion could go. Let me save everyone a lot of unnecessary posts, and go full Joseph Darlington.
"I apologize. I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
Phew, did it just in time...
Why apologize? We don't *care* if you do it, just letting you know why it's illegal and why no theater owner will agree to it. Exhibitors have to license the film from the distributor, period. Repertory screening outlets who screen privately-owned 35mm prints of 35-year-old movies are still required to get clearance from the film's copyright holder, whether 6 people or 600 show up.
I think you should do it, actually. Send us the address and time.
The added expense of filming scenes in Imax format makes me think they'll wait for a theatrical release prior to home video or streaming. I wouldn't think producers and distributors are in business to break even.
The added expense of filming scenes in Imax format makes me think they'll wait for a theatrical release prior to home video or streaming. I wouldn't think producers and distributors are in business to break even.
You’re right, but at some point given the present circumstances, breaking even starts to look like a win. I think if Marvel streams Black Widow and is able to conjure a profit it will be a game changer.
Just a friendly reminder that there's a new Next Bond Actor poll, with many new names and no old actors. :007)
Link: https://vote.pollcode.com/43642926
The added expense of filming scenes in Imax format makes me think they'll wait for a theatrical release prior to home video or streaming. I wouldn't think producers and distributors are in business to break even.
I wonder if in addition to the added expense, that there is some sort of contractual obligation with IMAX, that this film must screen in IMAX theaters for a certain period of time? One has to believe that IMAX Corp is no fan of home streaming instead of theatrical release. While IMAX generally does own the theaters themselves, IMAX exerts a lot of control over those IMAX theaters with very strong licensing agreements that include tech support, stringent quality control and apparently no wiggle room when it comes to presentation quality (unlike too many of our local multiplex operators who can be pathetically and frustratingly apathetic to complaints) you can contact IMAX directly about a theater issue and they will actually do something about it to the point of ending a contract with a theater chain for breach of contractual obligations.
The added expense of filming scenes in Imax format makes me think they'll wait for a theatrical release prior to home video or streaming. I wouldn't think producers and distributors are in business to break even.
I wonder if in addition to the added expense, that there is some sort of contractual obligation with IMAX, that this film must screen in IMAX theaters for a certain period of time? One has to believe that IMAX Corp is no fan of home streaming instead of theatrical release. While IMAX generally does own the theaters themselves, IMAX exerts a lot of control over those IMAX theaters with very strong licensing agreements that include tech support, stringent quality control and apparently no wiggle room when it comes to presentation quality (unlike too many of our local multiplex operators who can be pathetically and frustratingly apathetic to complaints) you can contact IMAX directly about a theater issue and they will actually do something about it to the point of ending a contract with a theater chain for breach of contractual obligations.
In this scenario, the theaters (IMAX or otherwise) have zero leverage. They can't enforce any kind of theatrical screening contractual obligation if there are no theaters in which to screen.
If theaters are operating, NTTD will open in them. If they aren't, MGM/Uni can ultimately do what they want and cite an Act of God clause as voiding any such agreement.
Minor product placement spoiler so I'm sure people here won't mind, but apparently it is the Nokia 8.3 handset that is appearing in NTTD. It has "5G capabilities".
At the beginning of March Nokia announced it was the phone partner for NTTD, but the model that would be used in the movie was unknown. Various gadget, phone sites speculated on which of Nokia's new 5G phones would be used.
The added expense of filming scenes in Imax format makes me think they'll wait for a theatrical release prior to home video or streaming. I wouldn't think producers and distributors are in business to break even.
I wonder if in addition to the added expense, that there is some sort of contractual obligation with IMAX, that this film must screen in IMAX theaters for a certain period of time? One has to believe that IMAX Corp is no fan of home streaming instead of theatrical release. While IMAX generally does own the theaters themselves, IMAX exerts a lot of control over those IMAX theaters with very strong licensing agreements that include tech support, stringent quality control and apparently no wiggle room when it comes to presentation quality (unlike too many of our local multiplex operators who can be pathetically and frustratingly apathetic to complaints) you can contact IMAX directly about a theater issue and they will actually do something about it to the point of ending a contract with a theater chain for breach of contractual obligations.
In this scenario, the theaters (IMAX or otherwise) have zero leverage. They can't enforce any kind of theatrical screening contractual obligation if there are no theaters in which to screen.
If theaters are operating, NTTD will open in them. If they aren't, MGM/Uni can ultimately do what they want and cite an Act of God clause as voiding any such agreement.
Don't disagree with anything you said....my point is, IMO that EON, et al would much prefer a theatrical release and would not entirely rule out a further delay of a month or two if it came to that. If, worst case scenario, they had to go to streaming, I could see down the road NTTD getting a special IMAX only release once theaters are up and running.
Comments
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
This would be illegal and no theaters would do it.
In a lot of places it would be, or at least it would be to sell more than a couple tickets.
Not arguing with you, just genuinely curious what exactly is illegal about it?
There are certain licenses involved with on demand and dvd ownership that prevent public performances. There are numerous cases where a bar would pay for a pay per view sporting event and show it to its patrons. The bars got sued or fined by the FCC.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-does-pay-per-view-mean-for-bar-94096/
Ah interesting, didn't realise that.
It's not illegal if it's for me and my pals. I wasn't talking about hiring the cinema and screening it for Joe Public, it's a private party.
I would suggest watching at home with a few pals would be fine. Hiring a public (albeit privately owned) place and screening to more than a few would be illegal.
I can see where this discussion could go. Let me save everyone a lot of unnecessary posts, and go full Joseph Darlington.
"I apologize. I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
Phew, did it just in time...
and the movie they try to watch is ... the latest James Bond: Yesterday Never Tomorrows!!!
Steal This Episode S25E09 January 5, 2014
(also Lenny and Carl give an excellent review of Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond in the same episode)
_____________________________________________
But I see a logical error in the above argument:
If the theatre owner were willing to open the theatre for a one time private showing, surely he'd be ready to open the theatre for regular screenings that would actually make real money?
He'd be charging you at least as much for the space rental as he would be forgoing from regular ticket sales.
Why apologize? We don't *care* if you do it, just letting you know why it's illegal and why no theater owner will agree to it. Exhibitors have to license the film from the distributor, period. Repertory screening outlets who screen privately-owned 35mm prints of 35-year-old movies are still required to get clearance from the film's copyright holder, whether 6 people or 600 show up.
I think you should do it, actually. Send us the address and time.
This movie will either get released as planned, or we’ll all be watching it at home. They are mutually exclusive. My vote is for streaming because I don’t believe theaters will be open in the fall, and I don’t want to wait another 6 months just to find out I have to wait another 6 months. The current thinking is this will recede in the early summer and then come back in the late fall/winter for a second wave. That timing is not ideal. EON needs to be proactive to protect the financial viability of the film and the franchise.
(no money left now...send food parcels)
Whatever the case, I'll probably be more happy with the reboot anyway as Spectre was the ending point I was pleased with for Daniel Craig's run of Bond films. If No Time to Die is bad, I'll be fine with owning Casino Royale and Spectre and calling it quits there. Just like The World is Not Enough was Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film for me. I'll never watch Die Another Day again.
I had every intention of doing the same for “NTTD”.
So I’d be willing to pay $75 now for a digital copy, if doing so came with a ticket to see the film in the theater when that day comes. As much as the five of us would have loved to see it on the big screen initially, we could settle for watching on the 65” 4K home theater. I would probably be the only one of us to see it again at the theater, but if my wife wanted to come, EON would get another $13 from me!
The biggest concern with this, would be the aforementioned piracy issue.
Thoughts?
Cheer down
of course there are some tricks as a theatre-owner to earn some money anyway: if you want to visit that screening you have to buy a voucher for eating/drinking about £8 or something
This is correct. You can show it at a home cinema if you want to. I know someone with too much money who has one of those, complete with a concession stand.
LOL!
You’re right, but at some point given the present circumstances, breaking even starts to look like a win. I think if Marvel streams Black Widow and is able to conjure a profit it will be a game changer.
Link: https://vote.pollcode.com/43642926
I wonder if in addition to the added expense, that there is some sort of contractual obligation with IMAX, that this film must screen in IMAX theaters for a certain period of time? One has to believe that IMAX Corp is no fan of home streaming instead of theatrical release. While IMAX generally does own the theaters themselves, IMAX exerts a lot of control over those IMAX theaters with very strong licensing agreements that include tech support, stringent quality control and apparently no wiggle room when it comes to presentation quality (unlike too many of our local multiplex operators who can be pathetically and frustratingly apathetic to complaints) you can contact IMAX directly about a theater issue and they will actually do something about it to the point of ending a contract with a theater chain for breach of contractual obligations.
In this scenario, the theaters (IMAX or otherwise) have zero leverage. They can't enforce any kind of theatrical screening contractual obligation if there are no theaters in which to screen.
If theaters are operating, NTTD will open in them. If they aren't, MGM/Uni can ultimately do what they want and cite an Act of God clause as voiding any such agreement.
At the beginning of March Nokia announced it was the phone partner for NTTD, but the model that would be used in the movie was unknown. Various gadget, phone sites speculated on which of Nokia's new 5G phones would be used.
This men's outlet claims it knows it is the 8.3 model but that Nomi uses the 7.2 model in the Nokia advert.
https://manofmany.com/tech/smartphones/nokia-new-phones-no-time-to-die
Bond can apparently be seen using the 8.3 model in one of the NTTD trailers.
https://www.gizchina.com/2020/03/06/nokia-5g-new-phone-appears-in-007-no-time-to-die-trailer/
You can learn more about the new Nokia phones here.
https://www.hmdglobal.com/press-releases/three-new-nokia-smartphones
Don't disagree with anything you said....my point is, IMO that EON, et al would much prefer a theatrical release and would not entirely rule out a further delay of a month or two if it came to that. If, worst case scenario, they had to go to streaming, I could see down the road NTTD getting a special IMAX only release once theaters are up and running.