Box Office Mojo – The Business of Hollywood Thread

Topic

Discuss box office results and the business side of the movie, television, and streaming industries here!

Replies

So it’s safe for me to throw away my MoviePass membership card, then?

njerry wrote:

So it’s safe for me to throw away my MoviePass membership card, then?

Considering how many times the company has seemingly risen from the dead, I’d hold onto the card until the court officially dissolves the company.

If I knew how to bet against stock futures I’d have been right in there with Movie Pass. Stupid idea and incredibly flawed business plan.

In their excitement to find the next big thing people are really missing on the fundamentals, like a service that gives a discount on service they don’t own or control.

Apple Series ‘Foundation’ Set To Be Ireland’s Largest Ever Production, Employing 500+ People

Foundation stars Jared Harris and Lee Pace, two very good choices.

And also in the article;

Also filming this year is Netflix’s Vikings: Valhalla, the spin-off of the Vikings series, which will shoot at Ashford Studios in Wicklow.

Ooh, history has got to be upset about loosing Vikings.

Actors’ union creates ‘landmark’ rules for filming sex scenes

Screen Actors Guild guidelines for intimacy coordinators are designed to protect performers filming nudity or simulated sex

I wonder if this is fallout from The Affair.

Someone is finally adapting the Asimov epic? Very cool.

rory wrote:

I wonder if this is fallout from The Affair.

I wouldn’t be surprised if The Affair was the tipping point.

I want to say there were some other series and movies that had some issues in recent times though I don’t remember the specifics right off.

“I Have Some New Ideas”: The Scramble Behind Robert Downey Jr.’s ‘Dolittle’ Debacle

njerry wrote:

Someone is finally adapting the Asimov epic? Very cool.

It’s actually a contemporary drama about rival clothing brands competing to release a line of female undergarments.

Well…I guess that’s cool, too. 

DavidM wrote:

njerry wrote:

Someone is finally adapting the Asimov epic? Very cool.

It’s actually a contemporary drama about rival clothing brands competing to release a line of female undergarments.

And it’s set in SPACE!!!

Todd wrote:

DavidM wrote:

njerry wrote:

Someone is finally adapting the Asimov epic? Very cool.

It’s actually a contemporary drama about rival clothing brands competing to release a line of female undergarments.

And it’s set in SPACE!!!

That’s impossible.

They use duck tape in space.

too stupid  NVM

It was too stupid, but you can’t say Lucas didn’t consider every detail.

Must’ve been very painful. Princess Leia was a trooper.

Disney+ Has 26.5 Million Subscribers

Is that a lot or a little?

well netflix has 60 million in the US, 167 WW… so… I dunno… I guess it’s fine for such a recent service and how little they have on offer…

I saw something today that said Apple+ had 33 million subscribers. That number probably has their free subscriptions through new iPhones and iPads. I think Verizon is giving away free subscriptions too.

I’d suspect the vast majority of Apple+ is free subs. They have so little content on their right now, which which apparently pretty good, nobody is talking about much. Apple sell around 25m new devices in the Americas region per quarter, add in the bundles with the likes of Verizon and that 33m is found pretty quickly.

Which is probably fine for them, I think they want at this stage for people to get used to using it.

BBC Needs To Reform Or It Could End Up Like Blockbuster, Says British Government

In a speech in Westminster on Wednesday, prime minister Boris Johnson’s spokesperson on broadcasting announced plans to decriminalize licence fee evasion in the UK — a move that the BBC says could cost it £200M ($262M) in lost revenue.

But Morgan also took the opportunity to put the BBC on notice that the government wants to make major changes to its funding model when its current operating agreement, known as its charter, is renewed in 2027. Morgan has previously mooted the idea of a subscription model akin to rivals like Amazon and Apple.

“Quite simply, the world in which the BBC was created and the licence fee was established has changed beyond recognition,” Morgan said. “The BBC’s role is not just to meet the demands of today, but to be ready to meet those of the future.” She added: “We must all be open-minded about the future of the licence fee beyond this point [2027]… These are not easy issues and it will require some honest and at times difficult conversations.”

The government’s plans for BBC reform start with the mission to end criminal sanctions for people who fail to pay the £154.50 annual licence fee to access the BBC’s services across TV, radio and online. She called these sanctions, which can ultimately result in a jail sentence, an “anachronism.”

But many fear the move is a politically motivated assault on the BBC from a Conservative government that is ideologically opposed to a publically-funded broadcaster and which also harbors deep misgivings about its Brexit and election coverage. Former BBC director general Lord Birt took the mic on Wednesday to tell Morgan that people will view her measures as an “attack” on his former employer. Morgan dismissed this notion. “I don’t think you should interpret this as any kind of attack on the BBC,” she said.

Todd wrote:

“Quite simply, the world in which the BBC was created and the licence fee was established has changed beyond recognition,” Morgan said. “The BBC’s role is not just to meet the demands of today, but to be ready to meet those of the future.” She added: “We must all be open-minded about the future of the licence fee beyond this point [2027]… These are not easy issues and it will require some honest and at times difficult conversations.”

All of which is true. but I have difficulty trusting the motives of this government.

Honesty in particular. is not their strong suit.

Exactly. In essence I agree with the ideas but yes the motivations here are highly suspect from a government avoiding programmes that ask them difficult questions.

I also think change is more difficult than they imagine. A lot of people say they are fine in theory with taking a sword to the BBC but when even a little watched channel like BBC3 was cut back and moved online all hell broke loose in a torrent of complaints.

 

I’d also add that there’s some irony in Morgan talking about the BBC keeping up with technological changes when they first launched their Beta of iPlayer streaming service in 2005. Two years before Netflix did it.

The single strongest argument to emerge so far is that Netflix is still in debt, $12bn in debt!

It’s investors are betting on its long term prosperity, but it’s not a model that’s proven itself yet.

A BBC run by a similar subscription model would have to be a lot smaller to remain in the black. It would be balkanised into a lot of truly seperate pieces and some of those pieces would fail financially. Disappearing in one way or another.

Which is what a lot of it’s critics and competitors want of course.

But I think it’s inevitable that non payment of the licence fee will stop being a criminal offence soon.

It’s a tax, but not collected by the tax office. In theory it could be moved to their control, but that’s the opposite of what this government wants. They want to reduce the BBCs budget, not secure it.

There was a Tweet comparing the BBC fee to the cost of an annual Netflix subscription, or other similar service and, sure, the BBC fee is more – but it entitles users to radio, podcasts, news, weather, and live sport in addition to television so it’s not really comparable.

Does the BBC run commercial advertisements on their television and radio channels? Or are they charging the fee in lieu of ads?

Broadcast television and radio in the US is “free”, because they run ads constantly. The general exceptions have always been the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) or National Public Radio (NPR) that receives some subsidies from the government, but mostly rely on viewer or listener support via on-air fundraising that seems to occur every month. I’ve noticed that lately even PBS has begun running commercial ads on behalf of companies that sponsor specific programs.

BBC is ad free… FOR NOW

The arguments against the government’s agenda are going to have to be very carefully, presented, and repeated. Aside from the free market ethos that drives the financial policy of Conservatism in the UK, there’s the reactionary percentage of the population that feels left out by social change and votes accordingly, the Brexit factor.

I’ve seen more than one twitter thread on how the BBC is too woke and that a lot of people don’t want to pay towards that. The drive to use woke as a criticism has been gathering for a while now and this is a bit of lightning rod for that already.

Bear in mind that twitter is showing me things based on my bubble there, so if I’m seeing some of those threads, I’m willing to bet that there are lot more of them out there I haven’t seen.

I think the best chance to resist the worst of what’s coming will be to concentrate on the financial arguments, but the cultural debate is inevitable. I hope it’s handled well.

ViacomCBS to launch new streaming service blending CBS All Access with Paramount films, Viacom channels

First came the merger. Now comes the streaming service.

Newly combined ViacomCBS is working on combining media assets for a new streaming service that will build on CBS All Access, according to people familiar with the matter.

While ViacomCBS executives haven’t made any firm decisions, they are considering creating a service with advertisements that will combine CBS All Access with Viacom assets including Pluto TV, Nickelodeon, BET, MTV, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures, said the people, who asked not to be named because the product discussions are private.

An ad-free version will also be available, and a premium version of the streaming service will include Showtime, the people said. ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service, nor a price, though the base service will probably be less than $10 a month, two of the people said.

ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service

I hear they’re playing with “Star Trek, The Good Fight and some other shit”

How does the licence get distributed to non-BBC channels? If I wanted to watch live broadcasts on the likes of Sky One or Channel 5 or BT Sports does that have anything to do with the licence?

The licence fee is for the BBC only; TV, radio, news, sport and online.

All the rest are supported by advertising and in the case of Sky and BT sports, subscription and/or pay per view.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service

I hear they’re playing with “Star Trek, The Good Fight and some other shit”

Crap+

In which case why not restrict access to BBC channels in the same way as all the other subscription services do and leave access to commercially funded channels open to all?

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service

I hear they’re playing with “Star Trek, The Good Fight and some other shit”

Crap+

They say fuck in Star Trek now, they can say shit in the service’s name

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service

I hear they’re playing with “Star Trek, The Good Fight and some other shit”

Crap+

They say fuck in Star Trek now, they can say shit in the service’s name

Shi+

+hole

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service

I hear they’re playing with “Star Trek, The Good Fight and some other shit”

Crap+

They say fuck in Star Trek now, they can say shit in the service’s name

For instance, “Fuck off Neelix, you little shit.”

saga wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

ViacomCBS executives haven’t decided on a name for the service

I hear they’re playing with “Star Trek, The Good Fight and some other shit”

Crap+

They say fuck in Star Trek now, they can say shit in the service’s name

For instance, “Fuck off Neelix, you little shit.”

“Shut the fuck up, Wesley!”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

njerry wrote:

Does the BBC run commercial advertisements on their television and radio channels?

It’s actually illegal for the BBC to advertise in the UK. You get the opposite of product placement where they sometimes hide the brand names.

BBC Worldwide, their commercial arm, does run ads on its services overseas. So if you access the BBC website with a UK IP address there are no ads but there are if you do outside.

It ends up with some weird scenarios like a few sections of the global site are sponsored so despite the B standing for British they can’t be accessed from the UK.

garjones wrote:

ou get the opposite of product placement where they sometimes hide the brand names.

I remember that Paul Simon’s ’70s hit single Kodachrome could not be played on BBC Radio because the title was a brand name. That’s an extreme reaction, IMO.

Amazon Becomes The Fastest-Growing Streamer In UK After Showing Premier League

Amazon Prime Video became the fastest-growing streamer in the UK in the final three months of 2019 after broadcasting Premier League football for the first time.

The streaming service embarked on a giant marketing push to promote its Premier League coverage, which coincided with two of Amazon’s biggest deal days: Black Friday and Cyber Monday.

The events propelled Amazon Prime Video to 7.14M subscribers in Q4 last year, according to BARB, Britain’s foremost TV audience measurement body. That was up 35% on the same period in 2018, when Amazon had 5.28M subs.

Netflix remains comfortably the biggest streamer in the UK after its subscriber numbers increased by nearly 20% year-on-year to 12.35M between October and December 2019.

The BARB data showed that Now TV, the streamer service owned by Comcast-backed Sky, had a flat year. Its 1.69M customers in Q4 was only marginally above the 1.57M recorded over the same period in 2018.

BARB added that the proportion of UK homes with a subscription to at least one of Netflix, Amazon or Now TV passed 50% for the first time.

To be honest the ‘fastest growing’ streamer is nothing that much to shout about, they’ve started later than Netflix who still have many more and there isn’t a great deal of competition with Disney + yet to launch in the UK. Now TV is basically what you get on Sky via a different delivery method rather than a new service.

The more interesting part of the story is a major player in streaming looking to live sports and how that has driven subscriptions, especially when Netflix have been adamant they have no interest in ever broadcasting live events.

So apparently PAramount finally got a hit with Sonic… if only now they would make a TMNT movie that looks good… one can only dream… u_u

Disney+ Opens Pre-Sale Offer In The UK, Sets Originals Premieres But No Word On ‘The Simpsons’

Disney has opened a pre-sale offer for subscriptions to its Disney+ streaming service in the UK and revealed which originals will be available at launch, although there’s no word on its plan for The Simpsons.

The Hollywood studio is offering customers the chance to sign up to the service for £49.99 for a year, a discount on the £59.99 regular annual subscription price. This price is available until March 23, the day before its UK launch.

The service comes to the UK over five months since its launch in the U.S., Canada and Netherlands.

The slate of Disney+ Originals from launch includes as The Mandalorian, High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, Diary of a Future President, The World According To Jeff Goldblum, Marvel’s Hero Project, Encore!, Disney Fairytale Weddings, Be Our Chef, Pick of the Litter, Shop Class and The Imagineering Story. The seventh and final season of Star Wars: The Clone Wars will also be available as will movies including Lady and the Tramp, Togo, Stargirl, Timmy Failure and One Day at Disney and shorts such as Forky Asks A Question, Family Sundays, Lamp Life, Pixar in Real Life, Sparkshorts and Short Circuit.

However, there remains question marks over whether the platform will air The Simpsons. In the U.S. Disney+ launched thirty seasons of the classic animated comedy but it’s thought that existing licensing deals in the UK, namely with Sky and Channel 4, may have complicated Homer and Marge’s debut on the British version of the service.

The platform will launch in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, and Switzerland on March 24, while additional Western Europe markets, including Belgium, the Nordics, and Portugal, will follow in summer 2020.

By all accounts the versions of The Simpsons on Disney+ are pretty dreadful anyway, with crops and edits. I’ll stick with the DVDs.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Andrew

garjones wrote:

njerry wrote:

Does the BBC run commercial advertisements on their television and radio channels?

It’s actually illegal for the BBC to advertise in the UK. You get the opposite of product placement where they sometimes hide the brand names.

BBC Worldwide, their commercial arm, does run ads on its services overseas. So if you access the BBC website with a UK IP address there are no ads but there are if you do outside.

It ends up with some weird scenarios like a few sections of the global site are sponsored so despite the B standing for British they can’t be accessed from the UK.

Technically it’s the same here with our ABC. Back in the 90s there’d be little jokes in programs when a guest on a show would slip in a plug for their product. One of the ABC’s most popular programs over the past decade has been The Gruen Transfer which is all about advertising – as a result they run ads in full on the show, and get away with it.

I haven’t read the charter so I’m not sure why exemptions are made for, for example, an ABC radio station having a “feature album” for the week, where they’ll play tracks from a new release – that seems like direct promotion of a product. Doesn’t every song played on radio count as an ad for the album/tour?

They’ve always really ignored it for entertainment stuff. If you look at something like Graham Norton which is on the BBC the majority of the guests are on to plug something and they’ll even hold up the book or show a clip from a film but it’s kind of accepted because generally people are interested. It comes vaguely under an inform and review banner.

Similarly shows on technology and motoring like Click or Top Gear show you the features of latest products but they fall under a ‘review’ classification because they’ll slag them off if they aren’t any good.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Bob Chapek to succeed Bob Iger as Disney CEO

In a seismic move, the conglomerate said on Tuesday that it is naming Bob Chapek as its next CEO, succeeding Bob Iger immediately. Iger is assuming the role of executive chairman and will lead the board through his contract’s end on Dec. 31, 2021.

Chapek, who has been with the company since 1993, has been chairman of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products since 2018. His new contract began on Feb. 24 and ends on Feb. 28, 2023, with his annual base salary increasing to $2,500,000.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, SteveUK, Todd

I’d like that as a base salary.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

I dont love this and i dont understand it except to say Iger doesnt love the day to day company management.

Well see how it plays out.

There is something going on at Disney and with Iger.

He released his autobiography a few months ago and was doing the rounds for it. Everyone was pulling different bits from it and doing stories about them. It seemed, to me at least, that he was nearing the end of his tenure at the helm of Disney. I really wasn’t that surprised he was moved out though the speed at which it did happen caught me off guard did. I honestly thought he was going to step down before the year was out.

Wall Streeters recalled that hell that broke loose 15 years ago when former CEO Michael Eisner and the Disney board named Iger to the top job — with what Wall Street considered little vetting of other higher-profile candidates. In other words, people thought Iger was an odd choice too. They hope lightening can strike twice.

https://deadline.com/2020/02/disney-bob-iger-successor-timing-reaction-bob-chapek-1202868321/

UK Facing $100m+ Funding Loss After Creative Europe Brexit Withdrawal; Orgs Call On Government To Plug Gap

The UK’s film and TV industries are facing a gap in public financial support as its now appears certain that the country will withdraw from funding program Creative Europe when the Brexit transition period ends in December 2020.

Bodies including the UK creative workers union Bectu and producers union Pact have called on the government to step in and replace that loss of funding, which totalled around $100M between the years 2014 and 2018. That money includes backing for production, sales, distribution and exhibition companies, and also support for the distribution of UK films in other European countries.

“As with any other European programme that the UK may no longer participate in its vitally important that the UK Government details how it plans to replace these programmes and make clear public commitments on the levels of funding they will make available to ensure we do not suffer economically at a time then the UK is favorably positioned to grow its share of the global markets,” said Pact CEO John McVay.

“This is troubling news for British independent filmmakers trying to survive in a market dominated by American productions,” said Head of Bectu Philippa Childs. As Deadline reported earlier this year, the UK saw records levels of production spend on its shoes in 2019, at $4.7BN, but the amount spent on homegrown UK production actually fell in that period.

“Creative Europe is instrumental in supporting the independent film sector through initial seed funding which enables many productions to get off the ground. Bectu will be contacting ministers to find out why the government opted out of third-country participation and for reassurances that the funding will be directly replaced,” added Childs. “There are clear economic arguments for this funding to remain in place. The government must not take the success of our creative industries for granted in a post-Brexit economy.”

The news emerged after the publishing of the government’s “approach to the Future Relationship with the EU” report yesterday, which made no mention of Creative Europe. The UK did have the option to become a third-party participant through direct financial contributions, but it does not appear this option will be used.

Part of our EU contribution that we used to get back in subsidies.

I’m conflicted about this. I do believe that new filmmakers need support and that difficult and distinctive voices need it too but… my experience is that there are also a lot of posh wankers developing films entirely to support their lifestyles and that they are producers in name only. They make films so that they can brag to their friends and pay their restaurant bills at the Ivy.

Todd wrote:

“As with any other European programme that the UK may no longer participate in its vitally important that the UK Government details how it plans to replace these programmes and make clear public commitments on the levels of funding they will make available to ensure we do not suffer economically at a time then the UK is favorably positioned to grow its share of the global markets,” said Pact CEO John McVay.

Yeah, good luck with that.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Uncle Retrospective, garjones

It would be great if this became a spur to really reform the subsidy system in the UK.

Do the homework and then build something that helps more new and interesting films get made.

Soft money shouldn’t support projects that can raise finance commercially, but it should help people who have both commercial and non commercial projects get started.

The sector I work in will be fine. Although I do work on some low budget films, the vast majority of my job is TV, and TV is booming thanks to the streaming wars.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, DavidM

Disney & Sky Ink New Deal, Making Disney+ Available To Sky Customers In UK & Ireland

Looks like this deal will also have Sky allowing Disney to put The Simpsons on Disney Plus:

Grab yourself a D'oh-nut and stay tuned… pic.twitter.com/orfYKCYgKG

— Disney+ UK (@DisneyPlusUK) March 3, 2020

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

Wow I was checking BOM… pretty bad end result for Rise of Skywalker, it seems… around a billion short of TFA… But then again, seeing TLJ, maybe TFA was the anomaly here and it might’ve given Disney the impression SW is bigger than it actually is…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Jon wrote:

Wow I was checking BOM… pretty bad end result for Rise of Skywalker, it seems… around a billion short of TFA… But then again, seeing TLJ, maybe TFA was the anomaly here and it might’ve given Disney the impression SW is bigger than it actually is…

I think Disney just fucked up Star Wars from the beginning. They had no real plan for the franchise. If Disney had had a plan for the Sequel Trilogy, they would have made insane levels of money.

It sounds like they have learned their lesson with the plans for The High Republic. We’ll have to wait and see if it works out for them.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Ben

Yeah not disputing they completely fucked it up, but still… TLJ and ROS’s numbers might be the actual indication of SW’s selling power… I’m thinking TFA got a massive nostalgia bump and might’ve been a blip…

Still, a billion+ franchise is nothing to scoff at of course, but SW might just not be a 2 billion+ franchise…

FWIW I saw TFA at the movies, but was happy to wait for cable when it came to the subsequent films.

They successfully hyped TFA as the kind of cultural moment that led people to see it who wouldn’t ordinarily watch it. My parents went to see it and they’ve never watched a Star Wars film in their lives.

I don’t think any of the subsequent movies had that, or the same rewatch factor.

BBC & ITV-Backed U.S. Streamer BritBox Hits 1M Subscribers

Jon wrote:

I’m thinking TFA got a massive nostalgia bump and might’ve been a blip…

Yeah, a Star Wars reboot was always going to be a massive cultural event, a movie that pretty much everybody would go and see. That was just a given for TFA.

But I think that they could’ve held on to that audience, that if TFA had been great (instead of kind of okay) and TLJ great (instead of kind of crap), they could pretty much have kept the numbers that that first reboot gave them. As it is, they lost them rightly.

All this will forever remain speculation, of course. The momentum is gone; they’ll have to rebuild their audience from the ground up with whatever they do next. Let’s hope that that gives them some freedom to do something actually worthwile.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

‘Onward’ Stalls At The Box Office But Coronavirus Probably Isn’t To Blame

Even without adjusting for inflation, the weakest opening for a Pixar since the first Toy Story.

Disney+ Adjusts Collaboration With Disney TV Studios As Labels Take On Larger Role In Series Development

Disney+ is in pre-production/production on Turner & Hooch, a series reboot of the Touchstone movie, from 20th Century Fox TV, The Mighty Ducks, a sequel series to the Disney movie, and David E. Kelley’s Big Shot starring John Stamos, both from ABC TV Studios. They are a result of a new, streamlined development process at Disney Television Studios, which gives greater autonomy to the mega TV studio, I hear. They would be the first series on Disney+ to come from Disney TV Studios, overseen by Dana Walden and run by Craig Hunegs.

The changes were gradual and implemented over a number of months. The Disney TV Studios labels, 20th TV, overseen by Carolyn Cassidy, Fox 21, led by Bert Salke; and ABC Studios, run by Johnnie Davis; no longer have creators go in and pitch shows to Disney+’s creative team, run by Agnes Chu, I hear. Series are instead developed internally at the studios specifically for Disney+. 20th TV, Fox 21 and ABC Studios are all said to have designated portions of their slates for Disney+ development, carefully curating them with projects appropriate for the service.

While Disney executives have been fluid about the spectrum of content on Disney+, I hear the internal designation of Disney’s streaming platforms is that Disney+ is for pure family play, Hulu is for adult entertainment content and ESPN+ for sports.
The High Fidelity reboot, starring Zoë Kravitz and produced by ABC Studios’ ABC Signature, had been pitched and ordered by Disney+ before the Disney-Fox merger closed. After the merger was completed and Disney TV Studios was formed, I hear the Disney TV Studios leadership quickly identified that the project was not a good fit for Disney+ and more appropriate for Hulu in older to explore darker theres. The series made the move from Disney+ to Hulu in April 2019. The Love, Simon offshoot Love, Victor also was originally pitched and sold to Disney+ before the close of the Disney-Fox merger. That series too eventually relocated to Hulu.

Under the tweaked development model, which emerged over time as a way to make the process more efficient, I hear projects are being taken to Disney+ by the divisions of Disney TV Studios when fully formed and packaged internally. Once Disney+ buys a project from a sister studio, the series is being developed at the studio, with only the studio’s executives hearing outlines and giving story notes.

The Disney+ content executives, led by Chu and Sarah Shepard, are being kept in the loop, and they continue to read scripts, I hear. Their communication is with their studio counterparts, and their main role is to weigh in whether the projects remain on track in being on-brand for Disney+. Once the development process is completed, and Disney+ and the respective studio agree on a budget, the series goes forward.

The changes are designed to improve and expedite the development process after several high profile early series projects from ABC Studios died on the vine at Disney+, including Book of Enchantment, which the streamer developed for more than a year, spending more than $4 million before pulling the plug las summer just as the show was gearing up for production.

Disney TV Studios is one of six suppliers to Disney+ — the largest in size on the TV side — responsible for about 1/6 of the platform’s slate. With the tweaked dynamic Disney+’s relationship with Disney TV Studios is moving closer to the way two other Disney+ suppliers, Marvel and Lucasfilm, have operated from the start, giving the TV studio more leeway in crafting series to run on the streaming service most closely associated with the Disney brand.

Having seen the High Fidelity remake, it’s very funny that they thought it would be suitable for Disney+.

Surprise! Netflix Is Destroying Disney Plus

Titles freed from the Disney vault, blockbusters from the Star Wars and Marvel universes, and a slew of get-them-in-the-door deals made Disney+ seem like a serious threat to Netflix’s streaming crown. But at the four-month mark, it appears that it’s more of an annoyance than a real threat to the longtime streaming leader.

Streaming aggregator Reelgood looked at data from 45,000 of its users in the United States who are currently subscribed to both services. Because it provides an alternate interface to finding streaming content on both services, Reelgood was able to track which titles those users streamed. The numbers, which cover November 12 (the day Disney+ went live) to February 17 paint a disappointing picture for Disney.

Disney+ has just three of the top 10 most-streamed movies — Avengers: Endgame (7), The Avengers (9), and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (10) — but the other seven titles are on Netflix, including Avengers: Infinity War, which is somehow more streamed than its much newer sequel. It did have the most-streamed TV show, The Mandalorian, but every other series in the top 10 is on Netflix, and six of those nine are Netflix originals. In fact, the next Disney+ show in the top 50 is The Simpsons at number 24.

And of the users who subscribe to both services, just about three-quarters use Netflix more, which presumably puts it at an advantage if personal streaming budgets are cut in the future, particularly if and when introductory pricing expires and/or Disney raises the monthly subscription fee.

Of course, four months might be long enough to collect a large dataset, but Disney+’s disappointing performance over that time is no where near enough evidence to prove that it’s a failure. There are, in fact, plenty of reasons for optimism.

First, many of the most highly anticipated Disney+ shows have yet to hit the service. Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Loki, and the Ewan McGregor-starring Obi-Wan Kenobi series are among those titles that have yet to debut, and it would be surprising if they didn’t post strong numbers.

Second, Disney might decide to loosen up its content standards. High Fidelity was moved to Hulu, where it became a hit, to keep Disney+ “safe for kids.” Love, Victor suffered a similar fate. If things get dire, Disney+ could easily host a more mature show and bring in a new audience.

Third, Netflix and its other competitors still have titles that will inevitably make it to Disney+. Avengers: Infinity War is a perfect example, as it will eventually bring its audience to Disney+, taking those eyeballs away from Netflix in the process.
Of course, there are also some troubling signs for Disney, including shows that were delayed (the Obi-Wan series) or flat-out canceled (the Lizzie McGuire reboot). And it’s not like Netflix is slacking off on its end, with a slew of titles hitting the service seemingly every months and a much larger collection of quality original content.

So while there’s still time for Disney+ to become the streaming juggernaut executives want it to be, it’s apparent that there’s a long road ahead of it, a road that almost certainly goes through Los Gatos, California, where Netflix is headquartered.

I don’t think Disney+ alone will be bigger than Netflix due to its inherent limitation of having to be “kid-friendly”. But if you combine its subscription figures with Hulu, which is more adult in nature, the two of them together may give Netflix a run for its money.

Yup, I’ve said before that you can see Netflix’s aim is to provide something for everyone to endure it’s regarded as the essential service. Disney+ suits kids and the Star Wars/Marvel crowd (basically the same people like us). Netflix has something for pretty much everyone in the household, my wife was watching Korean drama on it the other day.

A package with Hulu and Nat Geo could fill that gap but Hulu has been pretty half arsed up until now, no real killer show everyone is talking about, no attempt to expand it outside North America. They’ll need to change that and push it a lot harder if they want to realistically compete.

garjones wrote:

A package with Hulu and Nat Geo could fill that gap but Hulu has been pretty half arsed up until now, no real killer show everyone is talking about

Was Handmaid’s Tale Hulu? That’s pretty much the only thing I can think of that’s got that kind of traction, and even then it’s not exactly a huge killer show.

Dave wrote:

garjones wrote:

A package with Hulu and Nat Geo could fill that gap but Hulu has been pretty half arsed up until now, no real killer show everyone is talking about

Was Handmaid’s Tale Hulu? That’s pretty much the only thing I can think of that’s got that kind of traction, and even then it’s not exactly a huge killer show.

Yep, that’s a Hulu show. They just dumped all of FX network’s back catalog on Hulu along with some miniseries that were oriigally scheduled to air on the network. They are also dropping new shows on Hulu the day after they air on FX. While FX has a lot of really fantastic shows, I don’t think it will move the needle that significantly.

I really don’t know whose bright idea was to divide D+ and Hulu and whatever esle they have… I mean, sure, they want D+ to be for children… but d’uh, it’s the parents who pay for that shit…

Now the good news is that I forsee some of the smaller services giving up eventually and some might probably end up licensing back to Netflix, so we might end up with maybe a 3 way competition between Netflix, WB & Disney… that’s probably the best case scenario at this point…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Jon wrote:

Now the good news is that I forsee some of the smaller services giving up eventually and some might probably end up licensing back to Netflix, so we might end up with maybe a 3 way competition between Netflix, WB & Disney… that’s probably the best case scenario at this point…

Yeah I suspect the middle ground players will fall away eventually, although Amazon will still be there because they have massive cash reserves and combine it with their mail order service in the countries where that operates. WB the most precarious of those mentioned.

The much smaller specialist services like Criterion will likely be okay with a low cost base and they’ll cover their niche area.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Amazon… but then again… I’m not sure they’ll go on with the original content for too long… I mean, I don’t know they’ve had some good shows, and they have all the fucking money in the world so why not… Apple on the other hand…

And, I’m not sure about WB, they seem to be putting everything into one service (which is what they should do), and WB has like a massive and varied library… In fact, if they play they cards right, they should do much better than D+, ’cause let’s face it D+ is very limited in content.

And what more is there… NBCUniversal, ViacomCBS and Sony Pictures… I’m not sure if Sony’s got a streaming service (kinda weird that they don’t seem to)… but I don’t see “Peacock” and “CBS all access” doing all that well in the long run.

Then there’s the smaller ones like MGM and Lionsgate… mostly movies, but content is content.

It’s gonna get rough for Netflix once all the streaming services are up and running, ’cause they’re probably empty Netflix from pretty much everything… but maybe eventually they could poach content from some of those, and they could remain high enough, even on top.

But I mean, it’s getting beyond silly… we got Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Dinsey+, Apple, HBO Max (and like 2 other WB services), Peacock, CBSAA, hell even Youtube Premium (lol) and of course stuff like ESPN, but that’s very focused. Point is… very overkill.

Its just horizontal marketing.  Theyve obviously  run the metrics and determined theyll make more profit by having two subscription services with different content rather than one.

Jon wrote:

Oh yeah, I forgot about Amazon… but then again… I’m not sure they’ll go on with the original content for too long… I mean, I don’t know they’ve had some good shows, and they have all the fucking money in the world so why not… Apple on the other hand…

I think there’s a scenario where both Amazon or Apple may take a back seat. It’s just a scenario but content is not their core business unlike Netflix and Disney. I don’t expect it soon and they have oodles of cash to spend but Apple especially like to maintain a core small product line. If Apple + isn’t making a significant difference to their unit sales they have history in just jacking it in.

It’s common in the tech hardware business anyway. I remember in the first few weeks in my last job being in a seminar that pointed out that Microsoft, despite having launched hundreds of hardware and software products over decades only actually made money from 3 of them – Windows, Office and X-Box and for X-Box they had to wait nearly a decade to achieve that. All the rest they’ve dumped. Anyone remember the Zune?

Well…

2 users thanked author for this post.

Uncle Retrospective, Todd

[Todd]

Disney+ Is Asking YOU If It Should Add Buffy & Firefly

Surveys are being sent out to Disney+ users, asking them if shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly should be added to the streamer. The Disney streaming service has quickly enjoyed a good deal of success since it premiered in the U.S. last November. They’ve already unveiled a bonafide hit Original in the form of The Mandalorian and continue to add popular movies like Frozen II to their back catalog. More recently, the service launched in the U.K. and saw its signups more than triple as people stay at home and self-quarantine in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

But for all its success, Disney+ has also been criticized for a lack of must-watch exclusive content and being too restrictive when it comes to what it deems to be family-friendly enough to fit its brand. Because of the latter, intended Disney+ Originals like the Love, Simon spinoff have moved to Hulu and Lizzie McGuire star Hilary Duff is calling for the series’ Disney+ revival to follow suit after losing its showrunner over creative differences. Now, it appears the streamer is re-evaluating its approach and considering adding more mature content to its library.

A Disney+ subscriber recently posted a screenshot from an email survey they received to the service’s subreddit. The poll asks them to rank “how likely” they are to watch more adult-friendly TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, Modern Family, How I Met Your Mother, Black-ish, and Malcolm in the Middle, were they added to Disney+. ComicBook.com has since reached out to Disney, which confirmed this survey is real.

Both the long-running Buffy and short-lived, but fan-favorite, Firefly were created by Joss Whedon and acquired by Disney when they purchased Fox last year. Although the pair did air on network TV, they skew decidedly older than other Disney+ shows. Buffy, in particular, covers a lot of the same topics (including, teen drug use and sexuality) that reportedly led to the Love, Simon spinoff being shuttled over to Hulu. If Disney is really considering adding them, it could mean they’re planning to ease the restrictions on their Disney+ exclusives going forward. At the very least, it would paint a clearer picture of what they consider too mature for the platform, allowing them to avoid repeats of the situation with shows like Lizzie McGuire in the future.

No doubts, fans of either these Whedon series and/or the aforementioned comedy shows would be happy to see them made readily available through Disney+ (assuming they already have a subscription). Streamers like Netflix have enjoyed a great deal of success by including popular shows from the 1990s and 2000s like Friends and The Office, which appeal to both a younger generation and those who watched them when they initially aired. Shows like Buffy and Firefly should attract a similarly broad range of demographics, and have the potential to benefit the Disney+ brand as a whole – assuming enough people vote to have them added, anyway.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Todd.

Why are they even asking? Just put everything you own in there… =/

I get them being reticent to pitch the service too ‘old’, for fear of muddying the waters around the Disney brand, but I don’t see there being much in Buffy that’s worse than some of the stuff in the Marvel movies.

I signed up to Disney+ for a free trial and was a bit disappointed that Futurama wasn’t on there as I was looking forward to watching it with the kids. I’d definitely watch Malcolm In The Middle with them too. It does seem a bit odd to leave all that stuff off there if it’s available and not blocked for legal reasons.

It’s almost like they’re trying to build anticipation with free advertising…

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, njerry, garjones

Dave wrote:

I get them being reticent to pitch the service too ‘old’, for fear of muddying the waters around the Disney brand, but I don’t see there being much in Buffy that’s worse than some of the stuff in the Marvel movies.

I signed up to Disney+ for a free trial and was a bit disappointed that Futurama wasn’t on there as I was looking forward to watching it with the kids. I’d definitely watch Malcolm In The Middle with them too. It does seem a bit odd to leave all that stuff off there if it’s available and not blocked for legal reasons.

Spike did get rather more rapey than the average Marvel movie would allow.

Jon wrote:

Why are they even asking?

Publicity, to get people talking. If they have the rights, and they do, they’ll stick it on there anyway. If the content is a little ‘racy’ in places they’ll cut it.

Rory is spot on with the intent here.

 

[garjones]

saga wrote:

Spike did get rather more rapey than the average Marvel movie would allow.

That period is a little problematic. Even watching it on a binge long after it aired the Buffy/Spike stuff pushes the envelope, there’s a scene where it’s hard to imagine he is doing anything other than fingering her in a nightclub.

They can edit it though if the age appropriate thing is what they want. If that’s the issue, with Disney’s image, it’s not something they’ll turn over to an internet poll.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by garjones.

The Biggest Box Office Bombs Of 2019: Deadline’s Most Valuable Blockbuster Tournament

X-Men Dark Phoenix is deservedly on that list, that movie was a complete void of logic and a contender for worst superhero movie ever.

Anonymous wrote:

X-Men Dark Phoenix is deservedly on that list, that movie was a complete void of logic and a contender for worst superhero movie ever.

Worse than X-Men Origins Wolverine?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

X-Men Dark Phoenix is deservedly on that list, that movie was a complete void of logic and a contender for worst superhero movie ever.

Worse than X-Men Origins Wolverine?

Worse than X-Men: Apocalypse?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Dave wrote:

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

X-Men Dark Phoenix is deservedly on that list, that movie was a complete void of logic and a contender for worst superhero movie ever.

Worse than X-Men Origins Wolverine?

Worse than X-Men: Apocalypse?

Worse than X-Men: The Last Stand?

Wolverine or Apocalypse are almost similarly the worst.

I think Wolverine is mostly just annoying, Apocalypse is ridiculously dumb and annoying.

The rest of the films each have their haters, but also supporters. I think that WO and XMA have far fewer defenders. For good reason.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

I liked Apocalypse.

Bless your heart!

*runs away

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

I do wonder if Dark Phoenix could’ve done better without the knowledge of the impending merger… beyond the movie not being very good, it also had this feeling of pointlessness hanging around it…

Dark Phoenix is absolutely worse then Apocalypse.

I think the Rotten Tomatoes scores are pretty reflective of audience reception

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/franchise/x_men

 

I don’t think the merger had any real impact on the box office for Dark Phoenix. More the awareness that it was the latest lame entry in an increasingly lame series that needed to be put out to pasture. Honestly, they’re fortunate it didn’t do worse than it did.