Box Office Mojo – The Business of Hollywood Thread

Netflix Show Ads Banned By Disney Across Its Entertainment Networks

Disney has imposed a ban on advertising for Netflix shows across its entertainment networks, including ABC, FX and Freeform, though ESPN will continue to accept such spots.

The move is a sign of the increasingly competitive times, as the media and tech sectors are engaged in a high-stakes battle for streaming supremacy. Netflix spent nearly $2 billion last year on advertising and, given its $15 billion annual spending on content, will be continuing to promote its wares aggressively. Technology writ large is a major category for the TV business, helping keep traditional networks’ $75 billion annual ad haul intact despite headwinds from declining ratings to digital rivals of various kinds.

–SNIP–

Broadcast networks have been awash in streaming ads lately, as Fox’s broadcast of the Emmys last month vividly illustrated. While the overall number of scripted originals keeps climbing, the growth is being powered by streaming, with linear networks holding steady with their output. ABC has served as a launch pad for many streaming campaigns. Netflix’s first ad for Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman aired during this year’s Oscar telecast.

–SNIP–

Disney had initially looked to ban all competitive ads, but then reversed course and agreed to accept ads for Apple TV+ and Amazon shows, but kept Netlfix on the no-fly list.

“The direct-to-consumer business has evolved, with many more entrants looking to advertise in traditional television, and across our portfolio of networks,” a Disney spokesperson said in a statement. “While the initial decision was strictly advertising based, we reevaluated our strategy to reflect the comprehensive business relationships we have with many of these companies, as direct-to-consumer is one element.”

Netflix Show Ads Banned By Disney Across Its Entertainment Networks

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by SteveUK.

It was flagged as spam for some reason; I was able to untag it.

It was flagged as spam for some reason; I was able to untag it.

That’ll be Gar then, flexing his overlording muscles.

http://media3.giphy.com/media/KGSUutdUglyqk/giphy.gif

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by SteveUK.

I am curious if the notoriety of all the media hysteria did drive more business this weekend. Will people who’ve seen it recommend it to the people who haven’t, though, even if they personally liked it?

There’s some annoying ass-kissing in the article, but the facts do suggest the Smith knows what he’s doing again;
.

# How Will Smith Cracked the Code on Making Real Money in Hollywood
.
Once in decline, the ‘Gemini Man’ star has quietly become one of the most diversified (and wealthy) talents thanks to everything from working with Netflix to maintain his quote, investing in eco-friendly water and growing his digital footprint: “He’s unbelievably methodical.”
.
In March 2016, Will Smith was at a crossroads. After three decades in show business, he was coming off the coldest streak of an otherwise stellar career. His previous three movies — Concussion, Focus and the much-maligned After Earth — had posted relatively anemic box office numbers, earning a collective $451 million worldwide. Although the release of David Ayer’s ensemble tentpole Suicide Squad was looming, Smith’s next star vehicle would be the three-hanky drama Collateral Beauty, which he was shooting in New York and would mark his worst opening ever.
.
Just as things looked bleak (and with pressure building on CAA, his longtime agency), Smith made perhaps the riskiest move of his career, reteaming with Ayer for the big-budget human-orc (sort of) buddy comedy Bright. At Netflix no less. Though eyebrows were raised across town, in hindsight, the choice was bold. Sources say Smith pulled down a $27 million upfront salary — double what Warner Bros. would have paid him for the package — while extending his global brand thanks to the streamer’s reach into more than 190 countries (at the time, Bright held the distinction of Netflix’s biggest-ever budget at $100 million). In doing so, Smith also paved the way for so-called “theatrical-only” A-list talent from Sandra Bullock to Martin Scorsese to make movies for the streamer — and kept his $20 million quote intact.
.
What may have looked like a dicey move has been part of a savvy strategy to remake the 51-year-old star’s career for the digital age. During the past two years, Smith has reinvented his brand via shrewd product picks and cheeky web videos, earning 122 million followers across platforms. And following the blockbuster success of Disney’s Aladdin — which shocked virtually everyone by taking in $1.05 billion globally — Smith now stands near the apex of Hollywood’s star hierarchy. “If he’s not the highest paid, he’s tied for first,” says one top agent, placing him alongside Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert Downey Jr.
.
Perhaps as an insurance policy following his big-screen misfires, the rapper turned actor is now poised to make the leap to mogul status with a series of savvy social media moves and investments, including the July launch of Westbrook Inc. A cross-platform holding company that the actor oversees with his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, Westbrook is designed to expand the Smith family brand beyond film and TV into new media, technology and even merchandising. In addition, Smith enjoys wide-ranging revenue streams that stretch well beyond his feature film wheelhouse — encompassing everything from a venture capital fund that was an early investor in Uber and now backs several tech startups, a German rights-holding company, a Smith family-owned water brand and a digital studio that has become one of the most influential creators of shortform content. Meanwhile, he continues his day job and will face a major test with the Oct. 11 opening of Gemini Man, the Ang Lee-helmed sci-fi thriller that uses special effects to create a younger version of Smith squaring off against his current self.
.
In short, Smith has quietly become one of the most diversified megastars in Hollywood.
.
–SNIP–
.
Smith is putting plenty of his Hollywood dollars back into Westbrook while enlisting children Willow, 18, and Jaden, 21, in the effort (Jaden came up with the concept for the sustainably sourced and packaged Just Water brand, and Willow is teamed with Jada on Red Table Talk, which has become the most viewed series on Facebook Watch). Westbrook also has a handful of unnamed investors, with the ultimate goal of building an empire. Through his private investment vehicle, he and director Marc Forster acquired German rights group Telepool for some $40 million in July 2018. The move gives Smith access to German funding, distribution and a cash-generating library, and is expected to be a key element of Westbrook’s global expansion.
.
–SNIP–

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-will-smith-cracked-code-making-real-money-hollywood-1246035

Not a big surprise:

Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China

paul f wrote:

Not a big surprise:

Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China

Well there’s a big shitstorm with that whole China money thing right now, so expect to hear more about that in the coming days… =/

More, weirder, China-related movie news:

https://news.avclub.com/forgettable-yeti-movie-somehow-banned-in-multiple-count-1839195443

To explain all this, we’re going to have to—as we so often do, here at The A.V. Club—take a brief trip back to the Sino-French War of 1885, the resolution of which failed to expressly mark out the barriers of China’s control of the South China Sea, and especially those parts of it that are just miles off the coast of Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. After World War II, China began asserting that essentially all of the territory in the sea, including several islands in close proximity to other countries, belonged to it. Said claims were represented by drawing what’s now known as the Nine-Dash Line on maps of the region, a vague-ish boundary that all three countries (plus neighboring Indonesia) have loudly protested ever since. It all came to a head in 2013, when the Philippines took the issue to the Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Although China refused to participate in the arbitration—and denies the validity of the ruling to this day—the arbiters found that there was no basis to the country’s claims to “historical rights” over the territory, and ruled that the Nine-Dash Line was in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (C’mon, you knew you weren’t going to get through today without reading about the UNCLOS, right?)

What the flying fuck does all this have to do with Dreamworks’ silly little yeti movie? Well, there’s a scene in the film that features a map. And, wouldn’t you know it, there are those 9 dashes, readily apparent across a wide swathe of maritime territory. Upon seeing the line in the movie, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines all promptly flipped their shit; Malaysia just excised the scene in question, but the other two countries have now ordered the movie to be pulled from theaters. That’s not going to be a financial disaster for Universal or anything—none of these countries are, well, China, in terms of their contributions to the international box office—but it does mean that Abominable has gone from being basically the best(-ish) of the recent glut of sasquatch movies, to being a very weird data point in this ongoing debate that’s happening as Hollywood contorts itself (or doesn’t, in a few notable cases), in order to get access to the country’s massive but restrictive market.

Why Will Smith’s Gemini Man flopped at the box office

It’s not just because it’s bad.

Gemini Man’s failure at the box office is really just a perfect storm of indifference towards the movie itself, combined with the killer blow that it was released against the most-talked-about movie of the year in Joker.

.
That sums up the result; people just didn’t care.
.
The idea is fine; confronting yourself and what you really are, that’s very good drama. Add some action? Sure why not?
.
But you still have to bring something else to that, to make it stand out.
.
And no-one outside of techies gives a rat’s ass about HFR.

Dave wrote:

Plus, maybe people just don’t want another Terminator movie.

Sad to say, that may be the truth.
.
My personal opinion is they should do the Future War as an epic trilogy and stuff all the time travel once and for all.
.
Just embrace the scale and the sacrifice.
.
We all know that the Allies win WW2 but war films can still be amazing.
.
This could be amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Aside from Jurassic World, has a ‘reboot’ like this ever made serious bank?

Apart from Star Wars?
.
Jumanji.
.
Planet of the Apes got a trilogy.
.
But Ghostbusters and Independence Day 2 didn’t do so good.
.
It’s not a guarantee of success.

I agree that there have been a bunch of franchise restarts or IP relaunches that have disappointed. What’s the next one to be released? Possibly Charlie’s Angels. Any guesses on how that is going to do? They’re pitching it at female audiences pretty hard, as far as I can see.

Also, maybe you do need to write that paragraph, Tim. I don’t see any difference between the Force Awakens and Dark Fate in terms of its position in each respective franchise. They both use original actors playing beloved characters to try and pass the baton along and open up some room for future stories.

Well, Star Wars was never in danger of flopping.

Anonymous wrote:

I withdraw my comment because IIRC Fury Road was quite successful. But maybe you really need to have something special to push past the group of viewers who will buy tickets no matter what.

Fury Road was critically hugely successful. At the box office it was rather tepid. $375m from a $150m budget is around break even territory.

garjones wrote:

Tim wrote:

I withdraw my comment because IIRC Fury Road was quite successful. But maybe you really need to have something special to push past the group of viewers who will buy tickets no matter what.

Fury Road was critically hugely successful. At the box office it was rather tepid. $375m from a $150m budget is around break even territory.

Huh, well I guess my point stands and I am a genius having stumbled upon this major flaw in the Hollywood machine.

Quick, WarnerMedia, abandon the Wachowskis!

Dark Fate is much more stand-alone though, especially compared to Salvation and Genisys, both of which were marketed and designed as the start of trilogies.

Dark Fate opened second to the fourth weekend of Joker in the UK, and could drop to fifth this weekend, which isn’t a great sign.

I think they’ve said in interviews that they know sequels are unlikely due to the rights reverting soon.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/real-life-terminator-major-studios-face-sweeping-loss-iconic-80s-film-franchise-rights-1244737

I think we’re talking about two different things here.

Business-wise the two things are obviously completely different – Terminator isn’t Star Wars and isn’t anywhere near the same league in terms of fanbase and financial potential.

But in terms of concept, the idea of a decades-later sequel bringing back original cast members to pass the torch on to a new young cast in a story that’s part-sequel and part-remake is obviously pretty close.

Well, Star Wars was never in danger of flopping.

And yet, Solo did.

Dave wrote:

I think we’re talking about two different things here.

Business-wise the two things are obviously completely different – Terminator isn’t Star Wars and isn’t anywhere near the same league in terms of fanbase and financial potential.

But in terms of concept, the idea of a decades-later sequel bringing back original cast members to pass the torch on to a new young cast in a story that’s part-sequel and part-remake is obviously pretty close.

Ok, so I’m off to the Problem thread to point out that I clicked the WRONG BUTTON when I reported that post.
.
In the meantime; responding to it – all IP has some value but it’s important to figure out how much?
.
Terminator can continue to make millions of dollars for whoever controls it, but not billions. What will that mean going forwards?
.
Will they make smaller films, or even return to TV? Or are they so committed to the billion dollar club that they will choose not to make an further stories?

SteveUK wrote:

Terminator can continue to make millions of dollars for whoever controls it, but not billions. What will that mean going forwards?
.
Will they make smaller films, or even return to TV? Or are they so committed to the billion dollar club that they will choose not to make an further stories?

Still, it requires a bit of investment. Terminator on television has been tried and didn’t make it past three seasons. It’s not still making a return for the producers. The films still cost a lot of money to make, and I don’t think people associate Terminator with low-budget even though the first one was one of the best low-budget thrillers to come out in the 80’s. There may be an audience for future Terminator projects, but not one that would justify the expense with no guarantee that they would show up.

The economics are shifting. We just had a Dark Crystal TV show. Is that a bigger IP than Terminator?

A big IP doesn’t mean a big TV show. There’s a Bourne TV spin-off on right now in the US, but I’ve seen almost nobody talk about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treadstone

SteveUK wrote:

The economics are shifting. We just had a Dark Crystal TV show. Is that a bigger IP than Terminator?

No.

I was thinking that this is exactly the type of property that would pick up on streaming (Terminator not Dark Crystal).

Just do the film story but make it a mini-series over, say, 3 or 4 or 5 1- hour episodes and bill it as a Cameron-produced blockbuster event with marketing like The Loudest Voice. Flesh out the characters that Dave and Chris were talking about (I haven’t seen it).

If it does well just do a mini-series sequel, or if really well see if you can get back into the silver screen. I’m sure Arnie and Linda would be au fait.

Viacom/CBS presumably have a streaming service in the works. This could have been held over as launch content.

EDIT: Sorry, I just realised there was a huge fucking rights issue which means that would be impossible. So maybe it had to be a movie and it had to be released right now.

Yeah but I think National Amusements is making Viacom and CBS merge so they will have all the Paramount properties.

The original Terminator had a pretty low budget. Less than 10 mil I think. T2 was significantly more.

I don’t think you could really do a low budget Terminator unless you really pare it back and have no effects, no robot arms at, just people acting.

Jon wrote:

Maybe they could try to do a Prometheus-like kind of shift for the Terminator franchise, but well… we know how divisive Prometheus was

Never heard of it.
.
And twists are what every terminator film has tried, getting weirder as they went along. “Hey what if our hero was a resurrected murderer turned Terminator but still (symbolism alert) with a human heart!”
.
Regarding the money; the quoted budget for the first Terminator was $6.4m in 1984. Online inflation calculators put that at about $15.5m in today’s prices. What does that buy you?
.
You can get five ‘Upgrade’ movies ($3m in 2018) or 7.5% of a ‘Hobbs and Shaw’ film ($200m budget in 2018).
.
What kind of a film you’re aiming for is the big question?

The first one ripped off ‘Point Break’, but it’s found it’s own path since then.

Ye there’s John Wick and the horror franchise that spawned out of one of those horror movies… can’t remember the name tho (not a horror afficionado in the least)… wait it’s the Conjuring universe IIRC… That’s 2 new “universes” that spawned out of relatively low budget flicks, and they’ve kept them relatively low budget as well… seems the smart way to go.

Well, also, neither Wick or the Conjuring movies are trying to sell merch… They’re both about only the movies, basically, so getting a good return on investment is about as good as it gets for those types of movies.

I’m sure Disney would be disappointed with those same numbers from a branding POV, even though it’s quite a nice profit margin.

I sort of agree with Steve that the untouched part of the mythos is Conner’s war with Skynet.

We saw a version of that in Salvation and no one liked it, and then the franchise has kind of taken steps to rewrite that whole possibility.

It was a missed opportunity. I don’t think anyone would be interested in the idea unless you got a real visionary filmaker to do it, like Villeneuve or somebody, and then you’re basically locked in for a critical success with break-even financials.

The franchise is probably dead. No need to fuck the corpse.

I’m not sure I’m really capable of responding.

(I thought you might take umbrage with my corpse comment and have fully prepared a witty retort)

I like Terminator but the best I can say for myself is I’m a casual fan. I’ve seen all the films (excepting Dark Fate) and a couple of episodes of the TV series but I’m not really invested in the narrative beyond what it means to me nostalgically.

I have to defer to what you believe is the direction of the franchise.

Anyway, I gave you a vote up because of your general Daveness.

Dave wrote:

That’s been kept as backstory for a good reason, though. The original concept for Terminator is a present-day horror/action movie with strange bad guys and protectors from the future. The glimpses of backstory are all we need to make that story work.

If you make a film about the future war, you’re making a big sci-fi war movie, which is a totally different type of story. The back-plot is all that connects it.

In that regard, Terminator works best as a standalone film, and not the the first entry in a franchise. The only two options are to turn it into something new (future war film) or just keep sending Terminators back in time to try to kill the Conners. Personally, I’d rather they taken a chance on the former instead of going with the latter.

Okay, hear me out.

What if the movie is about a Terminator that travels *forward* in time to *save* the Human race … and the film ends with a shot of the Statue of Liberty submerged in sand revealing that it was Earth all along!

Also, the main character is really good at drifting.

It feels like you’re talking around the obvious success that would be “Planet of the Terminators: Tokyo Drift”

It IS always Skynet.

Not in this one! It’s Legion!

There’s not much difference.

SteveUK wrote:

Sarah Connor and John Connor fight Skynet. That’s it.

While I agree that it is always Skynet(or a version of it like Legion), I disagree with it always being the Connors fighting them. I like the character coming back to warn people and save the future ‘savior’ of the human race. My favorite character in Terminator was Kyle Reese and my favorite character in Dark Fate was Grace.

In HoX/PoX, Moira was a Reese like character in a sense(coming back to warn against AI domination), only with an ability to come back again after being defeated by the AI/robots repeatedly.

All this debate about Terminator misses the main point – there’s no more market for the franchise. There’s not the audience to support the necessary budgets. If only there was a word to describe what’s happened to the franchise…

I think it’s worth asking why there’s no more market though, other franchises from the same period are not in that state, and I think from my perspective Steve is right. It is a story cul de sac. You can branch out, like Salvation but that doesn’t feel like Terminator, the thrill of that single chase in modern day. So it goes back to repeating a lot.
.
Which is why I haven’t been arsed to see this in the cinema and will probably catch it on TV one day. I know that’s anecdotal but I’m also quite ‘target audience’ for it too.

I think it’s probably a relevant point. They weren’t world-building sci-fi movies, they were horror flicks in disguise. In fact I think the perception of them has changed over the years. I am old enough to have (illegally) seen the first Predator in the cinema and it was 100% sold and perceived of then as a horror movie.

SteveUK wrote:

Then John is the protagonist of T2 and T3.

 
I’d argue Sarah is still the protagonsit of 2, but Arnie’s T800 is definetly the main role.
 
Yeah it’s kinda funny how Terminator, Alien and Predator strated out as horror movies, then had a big succesful action movie for a sequel. And the three of them franchises share the same issues today. When you think about it, there’s little difference between the terminators, the aliens, the predators and creatures like Jason or Freddy… the only difference is Jason and Freddy are not sci-fi AND stayed in their horror lanes… I wonder what would’ve happened if the former 3 franchises had also stayed in the horror genre.
 
Out of those 5, only Aliens has somewhat succesfully managed to diverge, but then again, only with prometheus and only somewhat… Covenant is just another Alien movie in disguise, which was the most disappointing thing about it.
 
What I’d do with the Terminator franchise is go bold: Have humanity lose and see what happens after that, surely all those Terminator attempts would end up in something very human-like, the next evolution in the “human race”… which is kinda what they were going for in Salvation, buuut they back-pedaled after that, much like what happened with Covenant after Prometheus.

Christian wrote:

Didn’t they kind of try that with the last Predator? Haven’t seen it, mind.

.
Not really, it’s gorier again but it’s light, presented with Shane Black wisecracks
.

Christian wrote:

I think I’m with Tim at this point. This corpse has been fucked enough. Time to go gently into that good night.
(I’m sure there’ll be another movie along in a few years, of course.)

.
I’m not so sure we’ll see a movie any time soon.
.
I’m basing that on the Marvel characters like Blade and The Punisher, that had several films each, but which have reverted to Marvel. The people who had control of those licenses decided they couldn’t make enough money off them, so they just let them lapse.
.
We may see the Terminator dissappear for quite a while, visible only in other media; some novels, comics and merchandise (of course).
.
This was the big chance to bring back the Cameron magic and it didn’t catch on.

garjones wrote:

Jon wrote:

the only difference is Jason and Freddy are not sci-fi AND stayed in their horror lanes

The other difference is traditional horror movies are really cheap to make. I don’t know really who watched Friday 13th after the first couple, they seemed to me to be mainly ‘straight to video’ fare but that’s easier when it’s all a bit of tomato sauce and makeup and not high sci-fi.

Well the first Alien was a guy ina suit… and the first Terminator didn’t have a lot of FX either… it could be done for cheap… but yeah, probably would’ve gone straight to video.

You’re not the boss of me, Jerry.

Funnily enough I was having this conversation the other day with a director who was saying that every director cutting their teeth on horror films is basically trying to launch a career trajectory by doubling budgets $5mil to $10mil to $20mil by using IT as reference to what’s in Vogue (also Saw and the Conjuring)

Personally I don’t think studios could possibly be that stupid, but apparently they are, and agents are very good at selling scripts to studios that aren’t very good at securing distribution.

garjones wrote:

I think it’s probably a relevant point. They weren’t world-building sci-fi movies, they were horror flicks in disguise. In fact I think the perception of them has changed over the years. I am old enough to have (illegally) seen the first Predator in the cinema and it was 100% sold and perceived of then as a horror movie.

I am old enough to have (illegally) seen the first Alien in the cinema and … it’s strange, because I had little interest in horror movies and only went because it was SF, but it was paired with The Fog so I guess it was considered horror first and foremost (just not be me).
.
I mean, we must have known it was going to be bloody and scary, and it had an X rating, but we still somehow thought we were going to see something like Star Wars