The final film featuring actor Daniel Craig playing the iconic role of James Bond is now available to watch as a theatrical release worldwide. The current box office hit marks the 5th and final round Craig has made for the franchise.
While the previous standard has recently been that, after 45 days into the theatrical release, streaming options were finally made available, this time, just a little over a month after the premiere we now have the ability to rent the Bond film through video-on-demand (VOD) via retailers including Amazon Prime Video, Vudu and Apple TV+ for $19.99.
The movie can be streamed in up to 4K quality with high dynamic range.
If you haven’t got caught up with all the previous Bond movies that feature Daniel Craig, you can also have a binge on Amazon Prime video and watch “Skyfall“. “Casino Royal” (Free with subscription), “Quantum of Solace” (Free with subscription) and “Spectre”
The 25th James Bond Movie, just may be the best chance to help theaters that are struggling in a post-pandemic recovery. According THR, ahead of the UK World Premiere on Sept 28, there has been a spike in presale tickets and overall excitement is building as people are tearing to see the film, not at home but in a real live movie theater.
For the U.S. market, the film will be released soon, on October 8th, with the option to stream on the Paramount Plus platform 45 days after cinema release. Craig’s final Bond movie can easily be said to be one of the most anticipated movies this year (given the bigger build up that was started and re-started due to the continued postponements due to pandemic).
The trailer for “No Time to Die” first emerged back in 2019. The film’s plot will continue on from events of “Spectre”, and, this time, it looks like betrayal could be at play, especially with Madeline Swann. We hear 007 in the trailer react and say; “We all have our secrets…. we just didn’t get to yours yet”.
James is recruited to rescue a kidnapped scientist, but finds himself hot on the trail of a mysterious villain armed with a dangerous new technology.
Alongside Daniel Craig, cast includes a long list of incredible actors: Rami Malek, Lea Seydoux, Judi Dench, Christopher Waltx, Helena Bonham Carter, Mark Strong Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw and Jeffrey Wright.
There’s a joke somewhere in here but it’s hard to see it through the tears
Woody Allen’s onscreen counterpart, Alvy Singer, complaining about Hollywood Award Shows in “Annie Hall” remarked that a category of award for “Greatest Fascist Dictator” would not surprise him, and that Adolf Hitler would probably win.
Amazon, viewed from some neutral future date or by aliens from another planet would surely win the award for “Greatest Company to Amass Wealth & Power by Intentionally Losing Money” award. Or maybe just “World’s Biggest Ponzi Scheme”.
For now the fawning books and articles on the greatness of “Bezos’ Behmouth” continue to pile up.
An exception to the fawning fan fiction is “Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power” by David Dayen. The author also commented cogently on the current situation with Amazon and MGM. His thoughts shed much needed light on the simple and yet sadly overlooked truth about Amazon: its core mission is to monopolize not just online sales but all transactions that take place in the economy where a “cut” of those transactions can be extracted.
What’s with all these awards? They’re always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler. — Alvy Singer
This viewpoint, it would seem, can be traced back to a rare case where Jeff Bezos let his guard down and accidentally explained a core concept of the Amazon business model.
He said, simply: “Your margin is my opportunity”.
With this seemingly innocuous and widely misinterpreted phrase he unleashed the dogs of hell on the world of commerce. The MGM deal, according to Dayen, who is also editor of The American Prospect, is yet another attempt to gut an industry with techniques designed to use predatory pricing strategies to crush all rivals.
The sub-head from his article states: “The company wants to control pricing on everything, and funnel as many transactions to itself as possible.”
Meanwhile, somehow, this statement is finally being generally understood in its real context.
Yet what is astounding is that this is not a supposition or an accusation, but rather is a stated fact, and how this company has behaved and operated for decades.
Putting 2+2 together, the common interpretation that there is an “innocent” pro-customer meaning possible, is finally being seen for the absurdity that it is.
Simple, Effective and Disgusting: Selling below cost or at a loss to harm competition
We’ve seen how that goes. In this case, since Amazon does not make any data available on the profitability of various business segments, using nearly $9 billion to enhance its “free with Prime” business creates yet another loss-leader opportunity to destroy the margins of all other streaming platforms, who, like other businesses actually have to make a profit or at least break even, unlike Amazon due to its cross-subsidization of products and services.
Amazon wants to control all economic activity in the United States and the world. It wants a cut of every transaction. — D. Dayen
Amazon as “cross-subsidized content devourer” is how Dayen described the inevitable outcome of the deal in his article.
He also succinctly argues that by using its virtually unlimited power and resources to devour an ever larger share of the market, ultimately the result will be to drive up costs for competitors (for I.P., production and star power) and achieve the goal of squeezing the already slim margins for those poor schmucks (or rich schmucks like Disney, HBO, Netflix, etc.) that don’t have an unlimited budget for intentional losses.
The playbook is so obvious and familiar that it’s almost laughable. That is, if not for the death and destruction that always follow in the next chapters of this plot schema.
They pick on an established industry where no one will have sympathy for the rich victims – did anyone feel sorry for Borders or other large book retailers? Does anyone cry over the loss of Diapers.com or Quidisi? When Birkenstock complains does anyone listen?
How can gutting the streaming industry or unassailable giants like Disney and HBO be bad? Isn’t it just capitalism at its finest? Should we start preparing the award now for “Greatest Consolidator of Content in History”?
But what about the “loss leader” system? What about the ultimate outcome of less competition and higher prices overall, an obvious harm to consumers, regardless of how stupid and convoluted the route is to get there?
By moving the market in a way that will make streaming a terrible business for any company that has to compete with this, “oughta be illegal” script, margins will, if the gambit succeeds, face a similar fate to the one that anyone who used to be in the retail book industry, or any of the other entire industries that Amazon has received kudos for destroying, knows all too well.
Dayen also makes the point that, once this thinly veiled ploy is seen for what it is, the harm, not only to Amazon’s competitors but to the general public, should be obvious and impossible to ignore.
Citing the similarities with the recently brought antitrust action by the Washington, DC attorney general, it is exactly this kind of pernicious practice, that Amazon has not only gotten away with for decades, but Bezos has been lionized for “inventing”.
That lawsuit, which deals with an Amazon clause in 3rd party marketplace terms and conditions (since altered to disguise its true intent) that 3rd party sellers must sell anywhere outside Amazon’s marketplace at the same or higher price that they have listed on Amazon, is a sign of a gradual shift toward seeing the real meaning of Amazon’s behavior.
Since there are massive, exorbitant fees added to every transaction for all 3rd party sellers, the only way for them to make any profit at all is to tack on the cost of those fees, meaning artificially higher prices.
Amazon has ways to retaliate through “dark patterns” of its own special stripe, by manipulating buyers behaviors on its web site, making sure that sellers that don’t toe the line will get, essentially, zero sales.
For Amazon this kind of bullying and blackmail is a “win-win-win”. They see and have tattooed into their DNA all pain, suffering and loss for anyone other than the company (AMZN) as a gain for them.
3rd party sellers caught in hell trying to survive while paying fees up to 43% or more without recourse to try and recoup by selling anywhere else at lower prices?
Amazon congratulates themselves. Sellers undercutting each other, in spite of those fees in an effort to behave like a “mini-Amazon” and getting into a race to the bottom death match with each other? Yippee! Great for Amazon, when they are dead, there are always new victims waiting in line to enter the cage.
How about sellers that obtain goods illegally, counterfeit, illegal imports, stolen products, remainders and aftermarket overstock? They are GREAT for Amazon because they put even more pressure on the individual, honest sellers to immolate themselves trying to survive (and eventually die via pricing suicide) while Amazon can claim to be offering lower prices!
Oh, and when they “do their best” to stop all those illegal sellers, albeit at a snails pace, they are bailed out by section 230 and can point to their “partners in crime”, the counterfeiters, the knockoffs from China, the illegal imports and the stolen and aftermarket goods and say: “We tried our best, these are just a few bad apples” laughing all the way through every board meeting.
“Your margin is my opportunity”, indeed.
Above: Photo Collage by Lynxotic
There are no mitigating factors here. There is no “good guy” or customer obsessed hero. Just evil and the dead or dying. Wake the fuck up, America.
The praise and adulation continues, even as the $400 million yacht is being prepared for its maiden voyage
It’s as if Bezos is given award after award for the “genius” of selling 1$ bills for .75 cents. Championed for using a strategy that masquerades short term margin destruction as “customer obsession”, pretending that the dumping levels of pricing won’t in the long run flip into price gouging and the destruction of competition.
Somehow the massive detriment to consumers and the society at large is overlooked amid all the parties celebrating the “genius”.
But have the chickens finally come home to roost? Is anyone seeing a pattern of systematic use of the same tactics over and over, applied to each and every sector that Amazon chooses to “disrupt”? They didn’t get the nickname “grim reaper” for nothing. The problem is that it was meant as a compliment.
It is a sea change in the antitrust orientation, a sea change that is desperately needed, and with Lina Kahn and Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, it might be just over the horizon. Could even have a chance to come about.
That change, so long overdue, could finally begin the process of dismantling the damage wrought and and still to come, if there is no interdiction.
The worm will eventually turn. When? After decades of obvious abuse and criminal behavior, completely and willfully ignored (too complicated to see).
Will there eventually be so many victims that they will outnumber the duped and the sycophants? Stay tuned.
This is a world where four major banks control most of our money, four airlines shuttle most of us around the country, and four major cell phone providers connect most of our communications. If you are sick you can go to one of three main pharmacies to fill your prescription, and if you end up in a hospital almost every accessory to heal you comes from one of a handful of large medical suppliers.
Over the last forty years our choices have narrowed, our opportunities have shrunk, and our lives have become governed by a handful of very large and very powerful corporations.
Today, practically everything we buy, everywhere we shop, and every service we secure comes from a heavily concentrated market.
Dayen, the editor of the American Prospect and author of the acclaimed Chain of Title, provides a riveting account of what it means to live in this new age of monopoly and how we might resist this corporate hegemony.
Through vignettes and vivid case studies Dayen shows how these monopolies have transformed us, inverted us, and truly changed our lives, at the same time providing readers with the raw material to make monopoly a consequential issue in American life and revive a long-dormant antitrust movement.
Struggling cinemas may not survive the impact of the pandemic
On Thursday, October 8th, Regal Cinemas— the second largest movie theater chain in America—will be shutting its doors to audiences. This occurs as British parent company Cineworld deems the market far too unstable for its theaters to continue operating through the pandemic.
Cineworld owns 536 theaters in the United States and 127 in the UK. All of them will be closed indefinitely by the end of the week. According to the New York Times, these closures will impact 40,000 employees in the U.S. and over 5,000 in Europe.
We can confirm we are considering the temporary closure of our U.K. and US cinemas, but a final decision has not yet been reached. Once a decision has been made we will update all staff and customers as soon as we can.
Many theaters have been holding on for dear life since COVID-19 arrived this year. Most were forced to shut their doors in April and have only reopened within the past couple months— notably for the release of Christopher Nolan’s “Tenet.”
While “Tenet” should have been a blockbuster hit, though, the $200 million budget film only managed to earn $300 million at the box office. Evidently, even if the theaters are open, audiences are still tepid about returning to the cinema.
Simultaneously, “Tenet’s” underperformance showed studios that they remain better off waiting to releasing their films or moving them onto other platforms. Unfortunately, this means a shortage of product for the theaters.
The dominos are falling with Bond as the last straw
Non-coincidentally then, Cineworld decided to close up just days after MGM delayed the release of its 25th James Bond movie, “No Time To Die.” This is the second time the film has been pushed back, as it was originally billed for this Spring, but was delayed until November, and now won’t see the screen until next April.
In fact, almost all of the 2020 blockbusters have seen perpetual delays. Warner Brother’s “Wonder Woman: 1984” was supposed to come out earlier this year, but is now aiming for a Christmas release. Likewise, Marvel’s “Black Widow” was meant to be a summer sensation, but now sits on the backburner until 2021. Meanwhile, Disney’s “Mulan” went straight to the company’s streaming site, for the premium price of $30 on top of the monthly subscription fee.
Clearly, “No Time To Die” was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back for Cineworld.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Cineworld had already lost $1.6 billion in the first half of 2020. Now, on top of moviegoer’s concerns about COVID, there is not enough exciting content to get people into the cinema.
Perhaps people would risk going to the movies to see a new James Bond, Marvel, or DC film, but with these releases being continually postponed, staying open becomes a major and unrewarding gamble for theater owners.
Part of the struggle may also be tied to a reticence to consider theaters amongst other indoor businesses that warrant reopening. New York City and Los Angeles, for example, provide a huge portion of domestic audiences, but their respective government officials have been nervous about letting people return to the cinema. Without such hubs being operational, ticket prices will inevitably fall short of expectations.
As of right now, there is no telling when Regal Cinemas might reopen, or if other theater chains will follow in its footsteps. All of that depends heavily on how the country and its leaders deal with the coronavirus.
Official Movie Release and Premiere Timing Reconsidered
The 25th James Bond movie and the last one to star Daniel Craig “No Time to Die” has officially been delayed. The premiere in London was originally set for March 31st and worldwide release April 10th, yet due to the increasing global outbreaks of COVID-19, the movie and production company gave word that the film will now be released in November of this year.
The official word is said to be the result of an open letter written by a popular Bond fan website named MI6-HQ that addressed EON, MGM, and Universal about the health concerns relating to the movie release. (see link for full letter):
“With the Coronavirus reaching pandemic status, it is time to put public health above marketing release schedules and the cost of canceling publicity events.
Major events around the world have already been canceled or postponed due to health risks. Leading tech companies have banned travel for hundreds of thousands of employees, including Amazon and Google. All before the US and UK outbreaks expand.”
quote from MI6 Staff / www.mi6-hq.com
MGM, Universal and Bond producers, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, announced today that after careful consideration and thorough evaluation of the global theatrical marketplace, the release of NO TIME TO DIE will be postponed until November 2020. pic.twitter.com/a9h1RP5OKd
Two days after the letter was written, @007 the official Twitter page for the Bond movie took to social media to make the announcement of the delay. All in all this seems a wise decision as the public attendance of large numbers of people for any venue is in question due to the outbreak and the danger associated with close contact in enclosed spaces.
The entire film industry, concert and music industry and even live sports face a potentially huge challenge if this situation worsens. At this stage both the spread of the virus and the extent of quarantine measures that could become mandatory in the U.S. are unclear.
In Asia, not only mainland China but also Korea and Japan can be seen as initial examples of what could be in store for us in North America. In Europe, most notably Italy and in Iran things have already progressed beyond what we have seen thus far in the U.S.
Ultimately the question remains whether the spread of the infection can be contained, and yet, it is precisely measures such as the postponement of large public events that could be seen as part of the prophylactic response, and could help to prevent the kind of tragedy that China has already experienced.
Trend in Cancellations and Postponements Rising as Concerns of Infection Increase
Click to Buy “The Ghost Map” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
The list of events being cancelled due to fears of an increase in Coronavirus cases and even a possible eventual quarantine situation arising in the U.S. is getting longer daily. Some recent examples include the South by Southwest festival (also known as SWSX), scheduled to kick off on March 13th in Austin TX and yet is considering a cancellation after both Facebook and Twitter indicated that they would not send employees to the sow this year. The huge festival’s organizers must reconsider, it seems, after a petition online has been signed by over 40,000 people calling for the cancellation of the event. In some countries there is a ban on public gatherings altogether, naturally in China but even in Switzerland where there is a ban in place on any gathering that expects attendees in excess of 1000.
The effects on vast swaths of commerce, such as the $2.5 trillion trade show industry are looming large and could have a ripple effect throughout the economy as a whole. The Mobile World Congress, now known as MWC, originally scheduled for February 24-27, 2020 in Barcelona, Spain, for example, which is the world’s largest trade show for the Mobile Phone Industry has just been cancelled, and each of these kinds of large gatherings will mean a directly correlated drop in hotel, travel and restaurant revenue in the cities affected. To date more than 24 trade shows and conferences have been cancelled or postponed worldwide due to the concerns about the spread of the coronavirus.
Blake Lively is often referred to as one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood, but if anyone thinks that the former “Gossip Girl” actress is just a pretty face, her new movie “The Rhythm Section” is bound to challenge that shortsighted assumption.
Lively is hardly recognizable in “The Rhythm Section,” sporting shorter hair, a number of disguises, and a lot of makeup to make her appear like an “average” woman rather than a head-turning dame. However, as it should be with any actor or actress, it is the performance that matters, not the looks—leave praise for the latter to the hair and makeup department.
In the film, Lively plays Stephanie Patrick, a woman who loses her family to a plane crash. After learning that the crash was no accident, but an orchestrated event, she goes on a vengeful quest to violently punish those responsible. It is a long way from “Gossip Girl” or “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants,” and is a rare example of Lively taking the leading role in a blockbuster movie.
The movie comes in part from Eon Productions, one of the companies that produces the James Bond films. Thus, “The Rhythm Section” is presumably in good hands. Unfortunately, unless it is adapted from a Hunger Games book or attached to a DC, Marvel, or Star Wars franchise, female led action movies do not have a great track record for success. Even when backed by experienced producers and offering star-studded casts, movies like “Columbiana,” “SALT,” “Lucy,” or this year’s “Charlie’s Angels” all missed their critical or commercial marks.
This is likely due to the fact that the American action genre is deeply rooted in masculinity, emerging from the James Bond suaveness of the 1960s and becoming manlier throughout the 1980s with Rambos, Terminators, and John McClanes filling the screen with muscles. Developing a strong female action hero is thus a novel thing that runs somewhat contrary to the genre’s conventional iconography. Even the action movies that do employ female leads often sexualize them or contrarily place them into the overused woman-who-is-too-good-for-womanly-things archetype.
Emancipated Production Concept?
It is almost as if Hollywood is afraid of mixing femininity and action. “The Rhythm Section,” however, may test that notion, for Blake Lively’s character is a mother seeking revenge after losing her children. From Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Commando” to Liam Neeson in “Taken,” the vengeful or savior parent role is often allocated to the father figure. Perhaps “The Rhythm Section” will finally offer audiences a much needed touch of maternal badassery.
It also helps that Reed Morano directs the film. Known for her work on Hulu’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Morano has been quite effective at blending feminist themes and action-packed content on the small screen. Hopefully, she can carry this same affinity over to a feature film.
Jude Law and Sterling K Brown support Lively’s performance in “The Rhythm Section.” The movie is an adaptation of Mark Burnell’s 1999 novel of the same title—the first of four books he wrote about Stephanie Patrick. Burnell also wrote the screenplay for the film, and if it is a hit, there could be future sequel adaptations in store for Lively and the team. The movie comes out on January 31st.
