No Time To Die (now contains spoilers!) Ha

Semple said:
Aye I can't see them managing to hold out now.
Click to expand...
It says temporarily although obviously they are making people redundant. Sounds flippant but I can see them being able to bounce back quite quickly once it's viable. The majority of their jobs are relatively unskilled, easy for youngsters/anyone to jump into, and it's not like there's not going to be a big pool of people ready and willing when the time comes :(
 
jpaul said:
Piracy must still be an issue, if they had opened, and , it's a good film, people will eventually see it there anyway, unless ....


https://www.cinemauk.org.uk/the-ind...test-uk-cinema-statistics/monthly-admissions/
2020 Cinema admissions
January 16,505,362
February 14,544,878
March 4,807,037
April 0
May 0
June 0
July 393,596
August 2,456,578


pity there wasn't something similar to the meal subsidy ... in retrospect popcorn to eat in, with a free cinema ticket
Click to expand...

I think piracy is less of an issue to Cinemas nowadays, the bigger threat to them are online streaming companies (Netflix/Prime et al) as more people are happier to pay £10-15 a month for access to various streaming platforms with a lot of content that they can watch from the comfort of their own homes.

Scam said:
It says temporarily although obviously they are making people redundant. Sounds flippant but I can see them being able to bounce back quite quickly once it's viable. The majority of their jobs are relatively unskilled, easy for youngsters/anyone to jump into, and it's not like there's not going to be a big pool of people ready and willing when the time comes :(
Click to expand...

Yeah i did read the suggestion of making their workers redundant and then giving them the chance of reapplying for their jobs if the cinema has to open again in 6 months time. The problem is though, i imagine most of the cinemas that Cineworld own are probably leased, which means they'll still have to pay for them for the duration that they close them down for. It'll cost them too much money to pull out of the lease and then have to refit a new cinema when things are looking better.

That's all well and good, but like you say majority of the jobs is unskilled labour and those people are unlikely to have 6 months of savings put aside to tide them over with until they can reapply for their jobs.
 
Scam said:
Well, for a start they have the latest Bond movie to release, so that makes them rather more special than anyone else no? What a strange comment :confused:

This. I can't see many companies in other industries deciding to release a product for 1/4 of its sale value now rather than wait to maximise profit. It's a reality I'm afraid.

Studios have always had a fractured relationship with cinemas, just look at the willy waving that happened as soon as the first movies went to pvod earlier this year. It's very complicated..
Click to expand...

They won't be able to see that profit ever if they kill the damn cinema industry is the point I'm making. The studios are thinking they can shift all the pressure elsewhere and hold out for better days, at what cost?

They have to take the risk. The decisions they are making is costing jobs and an industry that they should be working with to help survive. In the long run, this helps no one.
 
Semple said:
That's all well and good, but like you say majority of the jobs is unskilled labour and those people are unlikely to have 6 months of savings put aside to tide them over with until they can reapply for their jobs.
Click to expand...
Well. Obviously that's a shame, but they are not going to be the only people in unskilled jobs that are losing their jobs in the months coming unfortunately. And I'm not saying it'd be the same people waiting for cinemas to reopen to get their jobs back, the reality is that if it's cheaper for the cinemas to shutter and make everyone redundant -- all I'm saying is that they're not exactly going to find it hard to find people to take up the reigns when they do reopen.

Fubsy said:
They won't be able to see that profit ever if they kill the damn cinema industry is the point I'm making. The studios are thinking they can shift all the pressure elsewhere and hold out for better days, at what cost?

They have to take the risk. The decisions they are making is costing jobs and an industry that they should be working with to help survive. In the long run, this helps no one.
Click to expand...
There are mass redundancies in studios across the board too, there are thousands/millions of freelance production workers unemployed because they can't go on-set and make any movies. There are thousands of jobs at risk from vendors that work for the studios that don't have any work to do. The whole industry is on hold, cinemas are only one part of the industry which is all struggling just as much as anyone.

You have to remember that every studio has income streams elsewhere that is keeping them essentially on life support (TV deals/shows, outside SVOD deals, advertising, live sports etc.). But besides that they are struggling as well. Why should they throw away perfectly good movies for a net loss, when they can chip away on life support (as above) until the time is right to release? It's unfortunate but true.
 
tomorrows sun headline - 007 licensed to kill - the cinema , nice swan-song

Film industries got to be concerned by gaming industry & OC's growth taking up mind space
Cambridgeshire cineworld with their higher admission fee seem, from their premises, to invest more than Vue, higher overheads ? Vue will soak up the capacity.
 
If they had released it then I would have gone to see it. They could have released it and just left it to play for months. The studio would get their money over a longer period and it would help keep the cinemas afloat. At this rate there won't be many cinemas left to show it when it does eventually get released. It might be counter-productive to their long term ticket sales because of this.
 
Hades said:
If they had released it then I would have gone to see it. They could have released it and just left it to play for months. The studio would get their money over a longer period and it would help keep the cinemas afloat. At this rate there won't be many cinemas left to show it when it does eventually get released. It might be counter-productive to their long term ticket sales because of this.
Click to expand...

These are probably the same people in business, all or nothing.
 
Scam said:
You have to remember that every studio has income streams elsewhere that is keeping them essentially on life support (TV deals/shows, outside SVOD deals, advertising, live sports etc.). But besides that they are struggling as well. Why should they throw away perfectly good movies for a net loss, when they can chip away on life support (as above) until the time is right to release? It's unfortunate but true.
Click to expand...

It's a massive risk, they longer they delay then there's less chance that there will be as many cinema's left when they finally do release films, meaning that there's even less takings/profit than if they'd risked a release right now.

It's a symbiotic relationship - Studios NEED cinemas open so they can garner huge $1 Billion films, but cinemas can't exist without films being released, so when one side of the relationship stops working, the whole relationship collapses.
 
Didn’t see any confirmation in the article....am I missing something?

Reading another article it just confirms what we already sort of knew. Bond is in exile at the start and she’s simply 007, so she isn’t a female Bond, just a female 007.

That’s fine with me, 007 is just a code name so could be anyone. Just don’t go making Jane Bond and calling it James Bond.
 
tenor.gif
 
This has come as a surprise. I like the plot twist.

She's bound to get some stick but I'm sure it's nothing a 00 agent can't handle. :)
 
It's been shown tha shoe Horning a female lead into before male cast roles bomb badly in the cinema. They should have psun open the bond universe and started afresh with a female lead as another agent for a complelety different part of MI6. It would have been more interesting, and won't have the main actress directly compared the other male actors that came before her. If this does bomb, what do they do? Remove her and cast a male actor again pushing back the notion female leads in action roles don't do well.
 
cu3ed said:
If this does bomb, what do they do?
Click to expand...
Maybe you could just read more carefully before spouting off about shoehorning anything? What has been discussed is blatantly not much more than the pre title sequence before DC comes back into the action as 007..
 
Scam said:
Maybe you could just read more carefully before spouting off about shoehorning anything? What has been discussed is blatantly not much more than the pre title sequence before DC comes back into the action as 007..
Click to expand...
So the film will open as her as 007, that usually had the assigned name of James Bond to it. She's, what, given the 007 signature for what reason then? 007 came with the name James Bond, theirs no real way getting around that. Its bad enough we have gone back to the rather terrible days of a old bond in the role, but this is getting pretty daft. Of course is plot filler shoe Horning, it serves no purpose to have her as a 007 in token jesture only.
 
cu3ed said:
So the film will open as her as 007, that usually had the assigned name of James Bond to it
Click to expand...
Isn't it the other way around.. there's a guy called James Bond who is assigned to be 007. It's like his job title. Seen as he's retired at the beginning of the movie they've assigned someone else that job title. When he comes back, he gets it back...
 
Scam said:
Isn't it the other way around.. there's a guy called James Bond who is assigned to be 007. It's like his job title. Seen as he's retired at the beginning of the movie they've assigned someone else that job title. When he comes back, he gets it back...
Click to expand...
In cannon the name James Bond is a fake name assigned to the 007 Agent, they dont hire only men named James Bond for the last 50 or so years lol. James Bond is a cover name, story etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom