I have almost zero hope that the Premiere in November will happen.
Eon would be well advised issuing NTTD on a digital platform and as long as most parts of the western world is still asked to stay at home.
Holding the movie month after month will also cost them a lot of $$, not counting the losses for their sponsor partners.
I’ve been saying this for weeks. It’s the only option that makes any sense given the uncertainty around the virus and the amount of interest they must surely be paying as the film is held back. My guess is once one of the studios releases a big tent poll digitally, the floodgates will open and the rest start to follow suit.
I have almost zero hope that the Premiere in November will happen.
Eon would be well advised issuing NTTD on a digital platform and as long as most parts of the western world is still asked to stay at home.
Holding the movie month after month will also cost them a lot of $$, not counting the losses for their sponsor partners.
I’ve been saying this for weeks. It’s the only option that makes any sense given the uncertainty around the virus and the amount of interest they must surely be paying as the film is held back. My guess is once one of the studios releases a big tent poll digitally, the floodgates will open and the rest start to follow suit.
You both may well be proven right. Those floodgates you refer to is exactly the reason that the theater chains are starting to take a stand (ie AMC and now some other chains basically saying they will boycott playing any Universal product once they reopen).
There's much at play here and obviously when the theaters can actually reopen is really the wildcard in all this. As far as the film's finances are concerned, yes they have taken a sharp financial hit with the promotion of the film, but we don't know what re-negotiations have or have not occurred since this pandemic with the film's creditors and/or other financial interests such as insurers, etc. From a purely personal standpoint, I so strongly prefer to see NTTD in proper theater, that I would rather wait until April 2021 than settle for seeing it digitally at home....but that's just me.
The theaters will be so crippled by the time they are open that they will have no leverage to "refuse" a studio's product.
As states lift the stay-at-home order, studios must either open or be classified as voluntary closings, which exempts them from things like rent relief and other financial protections.
So they are opening, because they're essentially being forced to, and they're enacting TSA-like screening measures (https://www.indiewire.com/2020/05/texas-movie-theaters-reopening-1202228918/), taking people's temperatures, refusing admission to anyone with a fever, and implementing a 25% occupancy cap. And why? So they can screen movies like The Goonies and American Sniper for $5 - a ticket price that is essentially a third of what they were charging two months ago.
Once they're on the other side of that experiment, any and all of these theaters - the ones that are left - will be BEGGING Universal to show the new Bond or Fast & Furious movie.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,761Chief of Staff
The theaters will be so crippled by the time they are open that they will have no leverage to "refuse" a studio's product.
As states lift the stay-at-home order, studios must either open or be classified as voluntary closings, which exempts them from things like rent relief and other financial protections.
Yes..but if people can watch the film at home then the theatres will be closed anyway and THAT will have a knock on effect on bars and restaurants
I don't think theaters are going away. I just think that theaters in November (or in 2021) will be in no position to tell a studio that they aren't running their films. Universal isn't about to drop NTTD on VOD if theaters are an option; I do think theaters are ultimately looking at (and trying to push back against) shorter exclusivity windows.
Someone said "theater is the new vinyl" and there will probably, ultimately be some truth to that. Big, special events for folks who will pay a premium for the experience. Ticket prices will go up, and the only folks willing to spend that money will demand a premium experience in return. Another reason for these big box hovels to get their houses in order.
I suppose we won’t know until we know, but I’d say we’ll have a very good sense by July as to whether the film can be released in theaters in November. If there’s a big spike once strict social distancing is relaxed, and there’s still no effective therapeutic treatment, I see no chance of a November theatrical release. At that point, EON and Universal will have a tough decision to make. And they may live to regret not making the bold choice to release the film digitally while most of the world was trapped at home. I think they could’ve made a killing with an April release.
He was referring to live theater not movie theaters. Live theater will need more time to rehearse, stage, etc while there are plenty of finished films just waiting for release. That all being said, NTTD could certainly still be delayed beyond 11/20.
Yes they aren't quite the same industry. It's just the start of a trend within the entertainment industry as a whole. If they don't intend to open until next year I was wondering if cinema will go the same way
Much more difficult to show live theatre so probably more hope for showing films.
Either way I think we are due yet another delay unfortunately
The studio is in a real pickle. They took a long time, too long, to make this one -- who knows what the real costs were against how they financed the film. They were counting on selling this as the last Craig film, and as such, bringing in a wide audience of ticket buyers. But, of course, C19 shelved that.
Postponing to November interrupted the marketing push. While it's possible the anticipation will build even more over the following nine months -- resulting in even greater ticket sales -- it's also highly likely there will be another C19 outbreak right around the time the film is set to be released. The world may go into lockdown again.
The studio could try selling the film directly to audiences at home, but their fear -- and I think it's a very real one -- is that this won't translate into the same revenue. Even if they charge $20 to rent it, there could be eight people watching the same viewing, or $80 in ticket sales forfeited and $60 lost (whatever their take of that might be), not including the inevitable piracy.
If they hadn't piddled around and taken so long to make this one, it could have been out last year or earlier, already recouped its costs, and be a hit all over again for home viewers renting it out of boredom. They could have really cashed in. But then this group has never seen being expeditious as important to their bottom line. So here we are.
It does make me wonder, though, if they might convince Craig to make one more if this one doesn't do as well. They'll need to recoup lost profits somehow, and coaxing Craig back for one more bigger and no-punches-pulled outing might be the way to do it. If they find a new Bond, they'll need that film to do the same, but that's riskier with an unknown property. Either way, their fumbling could be fans' benefit.
I wouldn't have any objections to DC coming back for one more. I like the current Bond Actor to be older than I am! But it would have to be a stand alone mission without all the personal heavy baggage. I can't see it happening anyway and think the producers will look to create another GE, CR refreshing impact with a new actor. Knowing them though will probably be released in 2027.. 8-)
but in this new film we know he's been retired five years, where will Bond be at in his career if Craig does one more?
solving mysteries at an old folks home?
but in this new film we know he's been retired five years, where will Bond be at in his career if Craig does one more?
solving mysteries at an old folks home?
James Bond's Jamaican Beach Party? On Her Majesty's Secret Service Pension Plan?
It's funny -- Craig was younger starting out as Bond than either Dalton or Brosnan, but because they took so long to make his (now) five films, his character ages more over the course of his run.
It's so weird to start with Bond in his first mission and then see him basically time jumped into late in his career for most of the movies.
But they can still make a Bond with him. The first four Connery Bonds were made only a year apart, if that, so it's not a question of needing to take years to produce a Bond film but simply how slowly this gang works.
The Craig Bonds don't seem to have a problem acknowledging Craig's age and building such into the stories, either, so making (another) Bond coming out of retirement film would be pretty easy.
Meanwhile, Liam Neeson turns out four or five movies a year where he's beating people up to rescue people in his life who have been kidnapped.
If this movie does less box office, though, the next Bond film will be done on a leaner budget, I would think. That could translate into better writing and directing, as they won't just have a lot of money to throw at it. But it could also handicap the production if they're introducing another Bond actor.
If this movie does less box office, though, the next Bond film will be done on a leaner budget, I would think. That could translate into better writing and directing, as they won't just have a lot of money to throw at it. But it could also handicap the production if they're introducing another Bond actor.
Agreed. It sounds weird to want a favorite movie franchise actually go with a lower budget, but I just dont feasibly see them cranking out 250m budgets if the films are not at LEAST making 800m.
Although I have a weird feeling that as long as everything is in the clear, NTTD will reach the $1bill mark. It's going to be a 5 year hiatus, Craig's last, and hype will be at a fever pitch.
Agreed. It sounds weird to want a favorite movie franchise actually go with a lower budget, but I just dont feasibly see them cranking out 250m budgets if the films are not at LEAST making 800m.
Although I have a weird feeling that as long as everything is in the clear, NTTD will reach the $1bill mark. It's going to be a 5 year hiatus, Craig's last, and hype will be at a fever pitch.
Might even be really good....wouldn't that be nice.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
If this movie does less box office, though, the next Bond film will be done on a leaner budget, I would think. That could translate into better writing and directing, as they won't just have a lot of money to throw at it. But it could also handicap the production if they're introducing another Bond actor.
I'm wondering if the new actor could also be paid less, initially. The actors pay will depend on the success of the movies.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
It's long overdue to move on from Craig - Spectre was such a disaster (for a myriad of reasons). New actor, no reboot, a return to making and releasing a movie in no more than three years. The formula worked for 30+ years.
If this movie does less box office, though, the next Bond film will be done on a leaner budget, I would think. That could translate into better writing and directing, as they won't just have a lot of money to throw at it. But it could also handicap the production if they're introducing another Bond actor.
I'm wondering if the new actor could also be paid less, initially. The actors pay will depend on the success of the movies.
New Bond actors have often been paid much less than the exiting Bond actor. The next Bond actor will likely have a lower salary to start with. Craig was a big savings for Casino Royale compared to the prospect of another Brosnan film.
If this movie does less box office, though, the next Bond film will be done on a leaner budget, I would think. That could translate into better writing and directing, as they won't just have a lot of money to throw at it. But it could also handicap the production if they're introducing another Bond actor.
I'm wondering if the new actor could also be paid less, initially. The actors pay will depend on the success of the movies.
New Bond actors have often been paid much less than the exiting Bond actor. The next Bond actor will likely have a lower salary to start with. Craig was a big savings for Casino Royale compared to the prospect of another Brosnan film.
Which would equal relatively unknown and younger.....
If this movie does less box office, though, the next Bond film will be done on a leaner budget, I would think. That could translate into better writing and directing, as they won't just have a lot of money to throw at it. But it could also handicap the production if they're introducing another Bond actor.
Agreed. It sounds weird to want a favorite movie franchise actually go with a lower budget, but I just dont feasibly see them cranking out 250m budgets if the films are not at LEAST making 800m.
Although I have a weird feeling that as long as everything is in the clear, NTTD will reach the $1bill mark. It's going to be a 5 year hiatus, Craig's last, and hype will be at a fever pitch.
I dunno. Unless there's some change in the C-19 situation, I wee this one tracking lower, perhaps even than SPECTRE.
A lower budget would necessitate more focus on character, which is generally good for Bond. But the problem isn't the budget of Bond movies these days but how they spend it. A lot of that money goes to the actors and producers, who have lucrative contracts to cash in.
It doesn't necessarily translate into anything meaningful onscreen. Look at SPECTRE, which was one of the most expensive Bond films. The villain's lair turned out to be be a mostly-CGI oil refinery populated by a few dozen extras we hardly saw. It wasn't the volcano with a cast of hundreds and a real helipad. It's amazing how much they spent on the movie and how long it took to make it, yet so many scenes are virtually empty of people and action.
I'm wondering if the new actor could also be paid less, initially. The actors pay will depend on the success of the movies.
New Bond actors have often been paid much less than the exiting Bond actor. The next Bond actor will likely have a lower salary to start with. Craig was a big savings for Casino Royale compared to the prospect of another Brosnan film.
Which would equal relatively unknown and younger.....
I'm guessing this will be the situation, but one thing has definitely changed: Bond films are perceived as "A" movies again -- not simply a movie franchise with a limited, built-in audience that will come see whatever is served up. Not since the 60s have they attracted to level of widespread accolades and audiences. They now have Oscar-winning actors and directors involved. It's not the same as during the Moore/Dalton/Brosnan era. This time, they might attract an A-list actor for the role, though I can't really think of one suited to play Bond. Whoever it is will have quite a challenge to fulfill following Daniel Craig. My hope is that it is a very talented and very suitable actor to play someone more in the Connery/Lazenby/Craig mold than the Moore/Dalton/Brosnan one.
I'm sure they can afford an A-list actor this time, but I don't think they should. Bond should be the star. The actor can and should become a star, but it should be Bond that makes him a star.
I'm sure they can afford an A-list actor this time, but I don't think they should. Bond should be the star. The actor can and should become a star, but it should be Bond that makes him a star.
I think you’re describing what has happened on a few instances in the past rather than an iron-bound rule. It was true of Connery and Craig obviously. Brosnan, too, I guess. I don’t know how high Moore’s profile was already between Maverick and The Saint. And Bond didn’t make Lazenby and Dalton into superstars. Who’s to say an established star couldn’t walk into the role and fully inhabit it?
It doesn't necessarily translate into anything meaningful onscreen. Look at SPECTRE, which was one of the most expensive Bond films. The villain's lair turned out to be be a mostly-CGI oil refinery populated by a few dozen extras we hardly saw. It wasn't the volcano with a cast of hundreds and a real helipad. It's amazing how much they spent on the movie and how long it took to make it, yet so many scenes are virtually empty of people and action.
You absolutely nailed the problem with SPECTRE. Almost none of that money made it onto the screen. Meanwhile, some of the scenes I liked best (e.g, the train fight) had to have been among the least expensive to make.
Comments
I’ve been saying this for weeks. It’s the only option that makes any sense given the uncertainty around the virus and the amount of interest they must surely be paying as the film is held back. My guess is once one of the studios releases a big tent poll digitally, the floodgates will open and the rest start to follow suit.
You both may well be proven right. Those floodgates you refer to is exactly the reason that the theater chains are starting to take a stand (ie AMC and now some other chains basically saying they will boycott playing any Universal product once they reopen).
There's much at play here and obviously when the theaters can actually reopen is really the wildcard in all this. As far as the film's finances are concerned, yes they have taken a sharp financial hit with the promotion of the film, but we don't know what re-negotiations have or have not occurred since this pandemic with the film's creditors and/or other financial interests such as insurers, etc. From a purely personal standpoint, I so strongly prefer to see NTTD in proper theater, that I would rather wait until April 2021 than settle for seeing it digitally at home....but that's just me.
As states lift the stay-at-home order, studios must either open or be classified as voluntary closings, which exempts them from things like rent relief and other financial protections.
So they are opening, because they're essentially being forced to, and they're enacting TSA-like screening measures (https://www.indiewire.com/2020/05/texas-movie-theaters-reopening-1202228918/), taking people's temperatures, refusing admission to anyone with a fever, and implementing a 25% occupancy cap. And why? So they can screen movies like The Goonies and American Sniper for $5 - a ticket price that is essentially a third of what they were charging two months ago.
Once they're on the other side of that experiment, any and all of these theaters - the ones that are left - will be BEGGING Universal to show the new Bond or Fast & Furious movie.
Yes..but if people can watch the film at home then the theatres will be closed anyway
Someone said "theater is the new vinyl" and there will probably, ultimately be some truth to that. Big, special events for folks who will pay a premium for the experience. Ticket prices will go up, and the only folks willing to spend that money will demand a premium experience in return. Another reason for these big box hovels to get their houses in order.
Wonder if this is the start of more news to come that means NTTD will be delayed until next year/released digitally.
https://www.timeout.com/london/news/theatres-will-stay-closed-until-2021-says-les-mis-producer-050520?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&cid=%7Elondon%7Enatsoc%7Efacebook%7Eechobox#Echobox=1588674779
He was referring to live theater not movie theaters. Live theater will need more time to rehearse, stage, etc while there are plenty of finished films just waiting for release. That all being said, NTTD could certainly still be delayed beyond 11/20.
Theatres show plays, cinemas show films. That doesn't mean that cinemas won't stay closed a very long time.
Much more difficult to show live theatre so probably more hope for showing films.
Either way I think we are due yet another delay unfortunately
Agreed.
Postponing to November interrupted the marketing push. While it's possible the anticipation will build even more over the following nine months -- resulting in even greater ticket sales -- it's also highly likely there will be another C19 outbreak right around the time the film is set to be released. The world may go into lockdown again.
The studio could try selling the film directly to audiences at home, but their fear -- and I think it's a very real one -- is that this won't translate into the same revenue. Even if they charge $20 to rent it, there could be eight people watching the same viewing, or $80 in ticket sales forfeited and $60 lost (whatever their take of that might be), not including the inevitable piracy.
If they hadn't piddled around and taken so long to make this one, it could have been out last year or earlier, already recouped its costs, and be a hit all over again for home viewers renting it out of boredom. They could have really cashed in. But then this group has never seen being expeditious as important to their bottom line. So here we are.
It does make me wonder, though, if they might convince Craig to make one more if this one doesn't do as well. They'll need to recoup lost profits somehow, and coaxing Craig back for one more bigger and no-punches-pulled outing might be the way to do it. If they find a new Bond, they'll need that film to do the same, but that's riskier with an unknown property. Either way, their fumbling could be fans' benefit.
solving mysteries at an old folks home?
James Bond's Jamaican Beach Party? On Her Majesty's Secret Service Pension Plan?
It's so weird to start with Bond in his first mission and then see him basically time jumped into late in his career for most of the movies.
But they can still make a Bond with him. The first four Connery Bonds were made only a year apart, if that, so it's not a question of needing to take years to produce a Bond film but simply how slowly this gang works.
The Craig Bonds don't seem to have a problem acknowledging Craig's age and building such into the stories, either, so making (another) Bond coming out of retirement film would be pretty easy.
Meanwhile, Liam Neeson turns out four or five movies a year where he's beating people up to rescue people in his life who have been kidnapped.
Agreed. It sounds weird to want a favorite movie franchise actually go with a lower budget, but I just dont feasibly see them cranking out 250m budgets if the films are not at LEAST making 800m.
Although I have a weird feeling that as long as everything is in the clear, NTTD will reach the $1bill mark. It's going to be a 5 year hiatus, Craig's last, and hype will be at a fever pitch.
Might even be really good....wouldn't that be nice.
I'm wondering if the new actor could also be paid less, initially. The actors pay will depend on the success of the movies.
New Bond actors have often been paid much less than the exiting Bond actor. The next Bond actor will likely have a lower salary to start with. Craig was a big savings for Casino Royale compared to the prospect of another Brosnan film.
Which would equal relatively unknown and younger.....
A lower budget would necessitate more focus on character, which is generally good for Bond. But the problem isn't the budget of Bond movies these days but how they spend it. A lot of that money goes to the actors and producers, who have lucrative contracts to cash in.
It doesn't necessarily translate into anything meaningful onscreen. Look at SPECTRE, which was one of the most expensive Bond films. The villain's lair turned out to be be a mostly-CGI oil refinery populated by a few dozen extras we hardly saw. It wasn't the volcano with a cast of hundreds and a real helipad. It's amazing how much they spent on the movie and how long it took to make it, yet so many scenes are virtually empty of people and action.
I think you’re describing what has happened on a few instances in the past rather than an iron-bound rule. It was true of Connery and Craig obviously. Brosnan, too, I guess. I don’t know how high Moore’s profile was already between Maverick and The Saint. And Bond didn’t make Lazenby and Dalton into superstars. Who’s to say an established star couldn’t walk into the role and fully inhabit it?
You absolutely nailed the problem with SPECTRE. Almost none of that money made it onto the screen. Meanwhile, some of the scenes I liked best (e.g, the train fight) had to have been among the least expensive to make.