Bond

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

I'm surprised at this, the Bond films always make massive profits. Do they just have a load of other flop films?

They have something like $2.5B in debt. As the asking price for the entire studio is around $5B, it puts things into perspective.
Also, the current MGM almost never bankrolls movies that carry their own logo. They don't have production facilities, etc. They're more a production company than an actual studio. At this point, they basically licence their intellectual properties to other studios (like New Line – Warner for Creed). The first four Craig movies were actually financed by Sony Pictures, which got the theatrical rights in return, but made very little money on them, most of it coming from the distribution fee (just like Indiana Jones would be bankrolled by Paramount, but the bulk of the profits would go to Lucasfilm, Spielberg and Ford). They don't lose money for the distributor, but they're more of a prestige thing.

For No Time to Die, things are supposed to change somewhat. After the end of the deal with Sony, MGM has partnered with Megan Ellison's Annapurna Pictures (much in need of a huge hit after a string of flops) and Universal and bankrolled on their own part of the budget. For US distribution, they're relying on their joint venture with Annapurna, now named United Artists (which has otherwise nothing in common with the old UA or even the Tom Cruise UA). For the rest of the world, it's Universal.

The interesting thing about the Sony deal is why it exists in the first place. Columbia Pictures owned the adaptation rights on Casino Royale after they had produced the 1967 version. In the late nineties, they also tried to partner with Kevin McClory on a rival Bond franchise based on the elements he owns through the rights on Thunderball. As you can expect, some litigation with MGM and EON was quick to follow.
At the same time, MGM claimed to have rights on Spider-Man, because they had merged with Cannon Pictures, which owned them during the eighties. And Sony really wanted to produce their adaptation of Spider-Man.
As a settlement, Sony Pictures agreed to give to EON the full rights to Casino Royale (including the 1967 film) and to produce the next two entries (they had a different deal for Skyfall and Spectre) for MGM. In exchange, they got the distribution rights for the new films and all rights on Spider-Man.
Also, Sony Pictures was briefly at the head of an investors consortium which owned MGM from 2004 to 2010, even if Sony wasn't the main stockholder (resulting in MGM releasing their movies on Blu-ray instead of HD DVD but picking Fox as their home video distributor, for instance). Since the last bankruptcy of MGM (around 2010-2011), Sony isn't an owner of MGM, as they went with Spyglass Entertainment.

Anyway, I'm not obsessed by conspiracies, but I suspect that the script of Spectre was such a clusterfuck because MGM and EON took advantage of the deal with Sony. Remember that EON finally managed to buy the remaining adaptation rights from the estate of Kevin McClory shortly after Skyfall was a huge hit. By focusing the next film, the last in the Sony deal, on SPECTRE and Blofeld, it was a way to put the bill into the budget for the movie (while they will be of much use for years to come) so Sony would pay the hefty sum instead.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Interesting. As a bit of a Bond obsessive I knew about the McClory stuff but not the rest.

[Dr Rock]

If they wanted to make more money, maybe put them out every other year like they did in the olden days, not gaping four year gaps between movies.

[popcorn]

If they wanted to make more money, maybe put them out every other year like they did in the olden days, not gaping four year gaps between movies.

That is not necessarily the most profitable method.

[Dex Sawash]

Should put crack in them

[amputeeporn]

Ta, Ant Farm Keyboard. That's really fascinating stuff as pertains to some of the ridiculous problems in Spectre.

[lipsink]

WW84 is £15 to watch on Amazon!! People will just find a way to stream it illegally and they'll do the same with No Time To Die if they just release it online.

[kalowski]

WW84 is £15 to watch on Amazon!! People will just find a way to stream it illegally and they'll do the same with No Time To Die if they just release it online.

Christ. I watched WW for the first time last night. It was pretty shit and certainly didn't whet my appetite for a £15 WW84.

[thecuriousorange]

I think you had to pay even more to stream Mulan, on top of the Disney Plus monthly charge.

EDIT: It was £19.99.

[dissolute ocelot]

I think you had to pay even more to stream Mulan, on top of the Disney Plus monthly charge.

EDIT: It was £19.99.

Mulan (and probably WW84) work on pester power from small children, although I'm sure a lot of Disney+ subscribers would just wait the 6 months or whatever till Mulan was free. If you've already waited a year through all the Bond postponements why would you pay £20 for a premium stream when you could watch it for a fiver (or even free) a few months later?

I'd pay a lot more than £20 never to hear about Bond again[nb]Or at least never to hear from the Partridgy fanboys again, including the ones I know personally[/nb], but sadly that doesn't seem to be an option.

[thecuriousorange]

Apparently they now have to digitally alter some of the product placement, like smartphones, so brands like Nokia can still advertise their latest kit, rather than an aged brick from two years ago.