Jump to content
IGNORED

No Time To Die: Bond 25 - Out Now


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

The same Disney that's having to lay off huge amounts of staff across every division? Yeah, pretty sure they have more pressing matters than hoping Cineworld stays alive, considering Disneyland hasn't been open since March, the other parks are still losing money, no one wants to go to the cinema and they lost almost $5 billion in the last quarter. That Disney should be worried about someone else's business?

No. The government should be continuing the furlough scheme so that cinemas, theatres and other artistic industries can exist once the world returns to normal. It's not to "fund the fucking cinema" it's to provide financial aid to those who cannot provide for themselves currently due to circumstances outside their control. That extends to zoos, theme parks etc. Stuff that just isn't viable at the moment.

No one wants to go to the cinema. One business in trouble pumping good money after bad to prop up another business in trouble, for an indefinite amount of time is not going to help anyone. Making sure the facilities are ready to go on a return to normality is the best way to save them, not trying to force something that nobody wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing reports now that the cinema release is going to be canned completely and it's going straight to digital download and streaming services.

 

EDIT: Actually I think this is just a Daily Express clickbait headline that I've had pushed to my phone. The story actually mentions nothing of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SweatyTravolta said:

The same Disney that's having to lay off huge amounts of staff across every division? Yeah, pretty sure they have more pressing matters than hoping Cineworld stays alive, considering Disneyland hasn't been open since March, the other parks are still losing money, no one wants to go to the cinema and they lost almost $5 billion in the last quarter. That Disney should be worried about someone else's business?

 

Theatrical business is an absolute core component of their business. Otherwise you'd be watching Black Widow on Disney+ right now. 

 

Its like breweries claiming that pubs are are not part of their business. One can't prosper without the other. 

 

You're a very shortsighted business to let a core customer of yours fail since its only going to hurt you in the long run. 

 

Last year Disney made 10.4 billion in profit, it has a net worth of 130bn and you think the taxpayer needs to bail out a crucial customer of theirs. I think the taxpayer has more pressing needs than to bail out private companies which are in difficulties because other private companies want to wait till 2021 so they can make the most money they can possibly make. 

 

Perhaps I'm wrong. Let's just get the taxpayers to cut a cheque to every private company now so that they may best maximise the profits their shareholders can make in 2021. After all, we need them to know that in the good times profits can flow to their shareholders, in the bad times the taxpayer will pick up the bill. 

 

What next, a bailout for Disney because they made a loss this year and can't pay a dividend to their shareholders? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SweatyTravolta said:

No one wants to go to the cinema. 

 

Yeah sure, and no one wants to pack into pubs, restaurants, get on a packed plane to go on a holiday, go to house parties, informal raves and attend weddings. All those places are completely devoid of people.  I didn't see people queuing round the corner waiting to eat at a packed Wagamamas because no one wants to be near other people right? I must have imagined that. 

 

Pull the other one. People aren't going to the cinema because there's nothing being shown they want to see. You have content people want to see and they'll pack into a cinema, the same way they'll pack into pubs and planes given half the chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McCoy said:

 

Yeah sure, and no one wants to pack into pubs, restaurants, get on a packed plane to go on a holiday, go to house parties, informal raves and attend weddings. All those places are completely devoid of people.  I didn't see people queuing round the corner waiting to eat at a packed Wagamamas because no one wants to be near other people right? I must have imagined that. 

 

Pull the other one. People aren't going to the cinema because there's nothing being shown they want to see. You have content people want to see and they'll pack into a cinema, the same way they'll pack into pubs and planes given half the chance. 


I’m not sure that’s right. People go to bars, cafes and restaurants to socialise with friends and family when in some places in the country you can’t socialise in your own home.


You’re not doing that when you go to the cinema. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McCoy said:

 

Yeah sure, and no one wants to pack into pubs, restaurants, get on a packed plane to go on a holiday, go to house parties, informal raves and attend weddings. All those places are completely devoid of people.  I didn't see people queuing round the corner waiting to eat at a packed Wagamamas because no one wants to be near other people right? I must have imagined that. 

 

Pull the other one. People aren't going to the cinema because there's nothing being shown they want to see. You have content people want to see and they'll pack into a cinema, the same way they'll pack into pubs and planes given half the chance. 

 

A movie starved public had a chance to see the new Nolan film in cinemas and said no. You can go on about how other service industries are doing but they're not comparable and the box office data we have so far backs me up.

 

You can't argue with the hard evidence you have in front of you. Well unless you're the Lib Dems, in which case ONLY TENET CAN WIN HERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:

I’m sure some of the bigger studios will swoop in and buy up some cinema chains. They really do need them.
 

Of course they’ll wait till the current owners have laid off all the staff and are in administration though. 

 

In the US, I don't think a studio is legally allowed to purchase a whole cinema chain. I think there are restrictions on how much ownership movie studios can have of cinemas, dating back to this case which broke up the vertical integration (production/distribution/exhibition) of the studios in Hays Code-era Hollywood:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

 

In the UK we've had cinemas with studio branding until relatively recently (Warner Village).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure that Tenet was the best film to judge the appetite for returning to the cinema. When I told people I’d been to the movies for the first time in six months and they asked what I’d seen, none of them had heard of it. 
 

Had it been a Bond / Mission: Impossible / Fast... / Marvel CU title then I think that would have been a better barometer of the state of things.

 

Tenet, if you’re not a film buff who knows who Christopher Nolan is, is not an easy sell to the general public. It doesn’t have a big-name star attached, and the plot is pretty difficult to explain in much detail, even if you’ve seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I'm a film analyst at all, in any way, but Tenet feels like it could have been a decent bellwether. Nolan makes big movies, I don't agree it's just film buffs. 3 Batmen, Inception, Dunkirk - these are all big smash hits. Robert Pattinson is a big star, even if you don't think the likes of Debicki or Branagh are.

 

But there's a pandemic on, and maybe in a world where TVs are bigger and better and everyone has Netflix, Prime, Disney+, maybe cinema was already dying. I think the Marvel juggernaut has been very successfully covering up that cinema was struggling anyway.

 

I tend to agree with McCoy that the studios are shooting their own business in the foot by not putting movies out. By the time we get through the winter and into spring 2021 there'll be films queuing up for limited numbers of weekends, in what's hard to imagine as anything other than a reduced number of screens. And releasing to a customer base that's forgotten about going to cinemas and paying too much for the privilege.

 

I think the movies studios might do better for their long term business sucking up some reduced profits this year. Surely some revenue is better than the zero they're currently looking at. 

 

That I don't think his particular remedy of showing a selection of back catalogue movies is all that viable doesn't mean I disagree with the broader point. I think people would be more willing to go to the cinema to see big new movies than they would a BTTF marathon. It's basic risk/reward, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Broker said:

From what someone who works in cinema upthread posted, back catalogue doesn’t make any money. And I get that, who is going to pay ridiculous cinema prices to watch a movie they’ve already seen a hundred times and have on DVD?

 

Not that they'd obviously make as much money as new films, but i've gone to see a number of classic films i'd never seen before at the cinema, a few i'd not seen too. Of the ones I saw, Jaws, Die Hard, Aliens, 2001, Terminator, Marathon Man, Rocky, Big Trouble in Little China were packed. Jaws was the most packed cinema i'd been in since Up. And when I finished Big Trouble in Little China the first thing the guy sat next to me said was; that was good, I've never seen it. I was so shocked at the thought of someone growing up without that film enriching their childhood that I couldn't form a reply.

 

There's plenty of classics people have not seen that they'd love to see at the cinema, as the best push to finally get round to watching them. There's not exactly a sold out every night market for them though yeah.

 

The curse of classics is they're so memorable you can't ever watch them anew. i found that ones that had a lot of close ups made more of an impression, extremely large faces is something else on the cinema screen. Leon was probably my favourite watch. Misery, Stand By Me, Blade Runner, The Shining, probably The Star Wars originals too i'd go to. I even made the trip to watch Goldeneye despite having seen it dozens of times on tv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely understand the appeal, I’m going to see Akira next week for the fourth time on a cinema screen. I was just commenting on the fact that someone said it wasn’t making up the shortfall. I’m guessing while you might get one or two packed nights out of those movies you won’t get the weeks and weeks a new film would give you.

 

8 hours ago, FishyFish said:

Tenet, if you’re not a film buff who knows who Christopher Nolan is, is not an easy sell to the general public. It doesn’t have a big-name star attached, and the plot is pretty difficult to explain in much detail, even if you’ve seen it.


Because nobody has heard of Inception right?!? This take seems crazy to me, he’s probably the biggest name director working in cinema at the moment, aside from old men who have been there for fifty years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Broker said:

Because nobody has heard of Inception right?!? This take seems crazy to me, he’s probably the biggest name director working in cinema at the moment, aside from old men who have been there for fifty years. 

 

Inception starred Leonado Di Caprio and had a trailer featuring Paris folding over on itself and a freight train rolling down a city street. It was spectacular and very memorable.

 

Tenet, on the other hand has a trailer nowhere near as strong. If you're not looking carefully a lot of the scenes featuring the main macguffin just looks like they're playing the film clips backwards, and the rest of it looks like a standard action thriller, with perhaps only the bit with the plane being standout. It also had the disadvantage due to the pandemic of not being shown before a bunch of other films that people went to see, being reliant on people watching it online or on TV (assuming they didn't just skip the adverts).

 

While people who frequent forums such as this, read magazines like Empire, or visit movie news sites are likely to be familiar with Christopher Nolan's work and what they're likely to get, the average cinemagoer gives far less weight to a director. Ask a lot of people who directed, say, Avengers Endgame, or Skyfall, or Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever, and they'll give you an Alan Partridge shrug. They might have seen some of Nolan's films, but it's unlikely they know or care about that. He's not a box-office draw to most people who don't already care about such things. They're drawn by different things - bankable, well known actors (The Rock, Tom Cruise etc.), known properties (Bond, Comic book adaptations, sequels to popular movies etc.), or by trailers and marketing that grab their attention and draw them in (the aforementioned Inception trailer).

 

Robert Pattinson is a well known actor, but I'm not sure he's a "movie star" at the moment - perhaps back when the Twilight series was everywhere, but since then he's worked on less visible properties to a large extent. This might change with the new Batman movies of course, but at present I don't think he's a "bums on seats" draw by name alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be tacit agreement here that Tenet's release was a mistake / bomb yet I hadn't read anything suggesting that and a quick Google now suggests that it has taken over $250m worldwide (for a film that is not, despite the names attached etc., exactly overflowing with mainstream appeal). I mean, it probably won't get close to their original forecasts, but that still doesn't seem like a disaster so far, in the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hmm said:

There seems to be tacit agreement here that Tenet's release was a mistake / bomb yet I hadn't read anything suggesting that and a quick Google now suggests that it has taken over $250m worldwide (for a film that is not, despite the names attached etc., exactly overflowing with mainstream appeal). I mean, it probably won't get close to their original forecasts, but that still doesn't seem like a disaster so far, in the circumstances.

 

There's an article on Forbes where is shows that Tenet, while not meeting what might have been expected in normal circumstances, is playing pretty much like it would have done had it been an original premise NOT directed by Nolan.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/09/22/box-office-why-chris-nolans-tenet-is-almost-already-a-hit/#151739371801

 

Quote

With $251 million worldwide after just a month in global theatrical release, Tenet is both a commercial disappointment and a halfway decent result for a big-budget Hollywood original. At this point in time, presuming that business doesn’t tick upward in North America (which may depend on if theaters in California and New York open for business in the coming weeks), we’re probably looking at a global total of between $325 million and $350 million worldwide.

 

That would be a clear financial loss for Warner Bros. and friends, since the Chris Nolan sci-fi actioner allegedly cost $200 million to produce along with related marketing costs. But it would also, ironically enough, but higher than almost every non-MCU/DC “original” or “new to you” blockbuster we’ve seen in the last several years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tenet was never going to do as well as they hoped, as no-one is going to risk going to a packed cinema and all the screens have to social distance anyway. Plus LA and New York cinemas are still closed according to some articles I’ve read which apparently are the 2 largest markets for the studios. 
 

Anyone could have seen this, so a return of close to $300M, most of which is from outside the US, is pretty good given the circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SweatyTravolta said:

 

A movie starved public had a chance to see the new Nolan film in cinemas and said no. You can go on about how other service industries are doing but they're not comparable and the box office data we have so far backs me up.

 

You can't argue with the hard evidence you have in front of you. Well unless you're the Lib Dems, in which case ONLY TENET CAN WIN HERE.

 

Well, let's look at the evidence then and compare like with like where possible.

 

Interstellar - Total UK box office $31,379,615

Tenet - Total UK box office to date $20,569,211

 

Both Nolan movies, although as mentioned up thread I think Tenet is a harder sell than things like Interstellar and Inception which either had more impressive trailers (Inception) or an easier concept to sell to the public (Interstellar). But these two Nolan movies seem broadly fair to compare. Interstellar also had a bigger named star in McConaughey. 

 

So definitely a downturn, probably around 25-30% when all is said and done. Plus, looking at Rotten Tomatoes, Tenet was less favourably received by the public (86% approval for Inter vs 76% approval for Tenet although broadly similar citric ratings for both) which can't have helped word of mouth box office. All said, in the middle of the pandemic that's not a terrible result and is potentially a result that could have been built upon had other films had followed.  I work with Pubs and their initial results when they re-opened were poor but they built on them and throughout the summer takings steadily increased as people's confidence returned.  There is no reason to believe that a similar effect may not have happened with cinema releases if there had been a stream of releases to keep things ticking over. 

 

As it is, Tenet got some people back in the habit of going to the Cinema but had no major new releases to continue the trend.  I don't have the demos in front of me but I'd wager Tenet also skews mostly male and mostly young. Therefore, not exactly a key release to attract the Mamma Mia crowd or the Dunkirk crowd (slightly older skewing) back to the Cinema both of which are important demos to attract for a healthy cinema ecosystem. With all that said, I'm actually astounded that it performed as well as it did and on those numbers alone I would have thought that there was a definite trend that could have been built on with other releases. Sure, it might have been a while until films were performing at 100% of their expected revenue but even 80% during a pandemic and whilst keeping your supply chain alive should have been seen as a long term win for studios. 

 

As it is, whilst most international cinemas are now open, many US cinemas are still closed which has led to US studios taking a decidedly local approach to decision making while for most releases international often represents a good 70+% of the total take.  Holding back US releases and releasing films first internationally for a few months might have been the best solution in many ways (piracy, admittedly, being a concern). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Nick R said:

 

In the US, I don't think a studio is legally allowed to purchase a whole cinema chain. I think there are restrictions on how much ownership movie studios can have of cinemas, dating back to this case which broke up the vertical integration (production/distribution/exhibition) of the studios in Hays Code-era Hollywood:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

 

In the UK we've had cinemas with studio branding until relatively recently (Warner Village).


This was true for many years, but it was controversially revoked by the DoJ earlier this year (from the same link as above):

 

Termination of the Paramount decrees
 

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division began a review of antitrust decrees that did not have expiration dates. On November 18, 2019, the DOJ announced it would seek to terminate the Paramount Decrees, which would include a two-year sunset period as to the practices of block booking and circuit dealing to allow theater chains to adjust. The Department stated it was "unlikely that the remaining defendants can reinstate their cartel" as reasoning for terminating the decrees.[10] The DOJ formally filed its motion for a court order to terminate the decrees on November 22, 2019.[11]The move was opposed by independent movie theater owners, including the Independent Cinema Alliance, and independent filmmakers.[9]

The court granted the DOJ's motion to lift the decrees on August 7, 2020, starting a two-year sunset termination period of the decrees.[12]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Rumours online today that MGM are in negotiations with both Netflix and Apple about putting this direct to streaming.

Current price tag is $200M cash for US streaming rights, which considering SPECTRE took about $300M BEFORE all the distribution slices and costs, seems like a good deal for MGM.

Not how I'd want to see Craig's swansong, esp with Fukanga at the helm but given where we are with the virus? I'll take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Glasgowchivas said:

Rumours online today that MGM are in negotiations with both Netflix and Apple about putting this direct to streaming.

 

Current price tag is $200M cash for US streaming rights, which considering SPECTRE took about $300M BEFORE all the distribution slices and costs, seems like a good deal for MGM.

 

I was just about to post that, you beat me to it! :hmm:

 

I saw it via Drew McWeeny (AICN's Moriarty):

 

 

 

 

I saw that $200m figure too, in this rough estimate:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Links said:

I vote whoever decides to release it on my telly on Christmas Day and making me relive ITV vibes circa 1985 onwards.

Was just thinking after reading the above that Xmas day would be the perfect day to release this by who ever buys it - bond at Xmas was what I remember growing up 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, papalazarou said:

Was just thinking after reading the above that Xmas day would be the perfect day to release this by who ever buys it - bond at Xmas was what I remember growing up 

Yep, and a marketing genius idea if we're all locked down on the 25th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.