Discuss box office results and the business side of the movie, television, and streaming industries here!
Box Office Mojo – The Business of Hollywood Thread
- This topic has 580 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 4 weeks ago by
.
Author
-
-
-
I think it’s inevitable that it will lead to a downturn in overseas box office for those movies. Once something is available online digitally it will be available to download illegally instantly as well. Very few people will bother going to the cinema to see something they’ve already seen in glorious UHD for free.
-
-
-
Sounds like they are committing to it for 2021 only, then see how things play out before making a decision on 2022. Also, the initial streaming on HBO Max is for one month, after which the film is only available in theaters for a while and then following the pre-2020 typical schedule for pay-per-view, On Demand streaming, Blu-Ray, and premium cable release.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
It’ll be interesting to watch. Disney and Warners/HBO have bene launching new streaming services, it’s not unreasonable to make a move to ensure more early adopters who will stay with the service for long term payoff.
On the other hand you look at the Bond experience where MGM shopped it around to streamers nobody would pay what would deliver them a modest profit. Which strongly suggests (as well as analysis of stuff like the Trolls sequel) that at the moment the potential profits from straight to streaming are not as good as a cinema release when they are all open.
So it may remain to be seen how long this continues, it’ll depend a lot on how long Covid keeps people away and as a result of that how many cinema operators may go under, reducing the chances of making more money from a theatrical release with fewer screens.
-
I think they’ll have a tough time selling HBO Max internationally, purely because HBO just isn’t that well known outside the US. We see it at the beginning of the occasional TV show but HBO content is available via other outlets like Sky Atlantic in the UK and Europe, so selling a streaming service that has literally no brand recognition is going to be difficult. Nobody would immediately associate DC characters with HBO for instance, in the same way you associate Marvel with Disney – as well as other big brands like Star Wars and Pixar. They should rebrand as Warners or something – anything other than HBO.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I agree it should’ve been WarnerMAX from the get go, but they really messed up the launch anyhow… What they need to do is to put the brands forward a lot more, ’cause people might not be too familiar with the HBO stuff, but you slap some of those franchises in the front and voilà! in terms of properties, WB has sooo much more than everyone else. I do wonder though if this will make Disney change their approach to their movies too…
As for cinema theaters in general, I’m not too worried… yes, unfortunately a lot of owners/operators might go down, but others will rise and lets hope they shake things a bit in the future.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Some more details in this article including that they never bothered to contact some of the filmmakers, studios, etc in advance of the announcement, and that they’re going to have to pay out every one of the “If your movie grosses $x, you receive an extra $10 million” clauses for all the actors, directors, etc.
https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/panic-over-the-warner-bros-hbo-max-news-sets-in.html
-
They’re potentially going to have to do that. In that article, it’s just a random guy saying that; I am sure it’ll be quite a legal fight to decide whether they really have to pay out those bonuses.
Other than that, there’s a lot of hand-wringing there:
Still, Hollywood executives, studio bosses, and top deal-makers feel that the upheaval of an entire year’s worth of theatrical product all at once — The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, the Sopranos movie prequel The Many Saints of Newark, the Black Panther biodrama Judas and the Black Messiah, and the filmed adaptation of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s In the Heights are all aimed at both HBO Max and theaters concurrently next year — could irrevocably rewire moviegoers’ ticket-buying patterns, forever changing the way people turn out for films.
“You’re going to set up a consumer pattern that they’ll expect this stuff,” says an exec at another studio. “You’re going to have event movies that you have to see in a movie theater, and have to experience on a big screen. If I can only see [blockbuster X] because it’s not available on any streaming service, I’m going to get in my car, pay my ten bucks, and go to the theater. Every movie that is not an event movie, you’re just not going to go.”
I have my doubts this is going to change all that much. If I want a night out at the movies, I’ll go see any movie that’s currently out there that I want to see even if I could also watch it at home. And the question is still, how many of those potential movie-goers will actually subscribe to HBO Max? Warners are still taking a big risk; this may simply turn out to be disastrous for them and that’s that.
I’m really more worried about what this might mean for the individual movies. Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 84 are big franchise movies, they’ll be fine. But Dune… I mean, if Dune doesn’t hit big, we won’t get all those sequels now, will we? Come on, man, fucking GOD EMPEROR!
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I don’t think there’s really any question of them recouping what they would have made on those movies with whatever additional HBO Max they get in the short term, in terms of subscription value. It’s just not going to happen.
This seems to be about being willing to sacrifice that box office, given the medium-term uncertainty over theatres, to establish a wider user base. They’re behind other, more established streaming services and this might be a way to get a boost.
I don’t know if it really means upending the model forever as that articles suggests.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I mean, if Dune doesn’t hit big, we won’t get all those sequels now, will we?
One of the questions I have about this is whether/how they will be able to gauge the success of new franchise-starters like this. A streaming audience is different to a cinema audience and while people might show up for Dune on streaming, it might not be an indicator of how much they can bank on a cinema audience for the sequel.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
It’ll be a bit disappointing if we don’t get Dune 2: the back half of the novel (and I don’t mean the whole way Dune Messiah was meant to be part of Dune, literally the end of the book)
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
And Sonic the Hedgehog remains the best movie I saw in the cinema this year.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
If I want a night out at the movies, I’ll go see any movie that’s currently out there that I want to see even if I could also watch it at home.
This is actually a very underestimated part of movie attendance. If you ask anyone who has worked box office it’s a very frequent experience that customers arrive and ask them for recommendations on which film to see.
It’s generally ignored because film writers are people who will always know what they are going to see and studios can’t really do anything about that kind of punter who’s mostly just interested in the night out experience. Only the cinemas themselves can influence that by making it as pleasant an experience as possible.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
As much as I love the convenience of watching movies at home, it doesn’t come close to seeing an FX-heavy blockbuster on the big screen. I love seeing the Marvel movies in the theaters.
Same here, but there are plenty of occasions when that experience would be trumped by the sheer convenience and cost benefits of watching it at home. If this became the norm, my cinema-going would be reduced drastically. And I’m not even a parent who has to pay a fortune for tickets and snacks when I go to the cinema.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
customers arrive and ask them for recommendations on which film to see.
I wish I were rich enough to do this.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
movies like […] Dune that I’m ambivalent about
Thallamaka al-lahu wa-natharaka! May thy knife chip and shatter!
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
movies like […] Dune that I’m ambivalent about
Thallamaka al-lahu wa-natharaka! May thy knife chip and shatter!
Pfft. How can it possibly top the David “Alan Smithee” Lynch version!*
*Apologies if I broke anyone’s sarcasmeter.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Legendary Had No Advance Notice About Warner’s HBO Max Plan
The topic was discussed during an industry discussion by Deadline reporters Peter Bart and Mike Fleming. According to Bart and Fleming, Legendary put up a significant portion of the budget for both Godzilla vs. Kong and Dune, nearly 75 percent WarnerMedia’s decision could potentially hurt both blockbusters’ chances of having lucrative franchises if they debut on streaming platforms too early. This, of course, would put Legendary at a loss.
“I’m hearing that Legendary Entertainment either has or will send legal letters to Warner Bros as soon as today, challenging the decision to put the Denis Villenueve-directed Dune into the HBO Max deal, and maybe Godzilla vs. Kong as well,” Fleming states. “Sources said Legendary had no advance notice before last week’s announcement that both Dune and Godzilla vs. Kong were part of the HBO Max plan.”
From Fleming’s argument, it appears that Legendary feels slighted by Warner Media for omitting the information that two of their big-budget projects will be streamed as soon as they are released. While Godzilla Vs. Kong isn’t slated for release until May 2021, Legendary is likely concerned that domestic moviegoers won’t be flocking to theaters due to health concerns. Plus, the convenience of being able to stream a high-quality blockbuster from your home is hard to refuse.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
This is actually a very underestimated part of movie attendance. If you ask anyone who has worked box office it’s a very frequent experience that customers arrive and ask them for recommendations on which film to see.
Which is probably why there’s an endless stream of re-hashed comedies, romantic flicks and horror flicks seemingly at all times in cinemas.
I think they’re exagerating, cinemas won’t dies, though they might be forced to adapt and that’s a good thing for the consumers. Covid is just pushing the gas on some stuff that was gonna happen soon enough irregardless.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I really don’t like Timothée Chalamet. He has that “needs to be punched in the face repeatedly” quality like Miles Teller.
Given Paul isn’t exactly a hero that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
More on the back-end deals:
WME, which counts Ms. Gadot as a client, and CAA, which represents Ms. Jenkins, had a lot of questions, but the biggest involved money: How are you going to pay them?
With “Wonder Woman 1984,” agents argued that Ms. Gadot, Ms. Jenkins and the producer Charles Roven (among others) needed to be paid what they most likely would have received had the sequel been released in a traditional manner (an exclusive run in theaters before arriving online) and not during the height of a pandemic. After all, that was what they signed up for, and Warner Bros. and HBO Max, its corporate sibling, wanted their help in promoting the film, did they not?
After a tense negotiation, Warner Bros., which is owned by AT&T, agreed that Ms. Gadot and Ms. Jenkins would each get more than $10 million, according to two people with knowledge of the deals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private agreements.
Under the WarnerMedia plan, HBO Max will pay Warner Bros. a licensing fee for the 31-day concurrent rights. The fee will be equal to the studio’s portion of ticket sales in the United States. (Ticket sales are generally split 50-50 between studios and theaters.)
Other factors could influence the fee, including the percentage of theaters that are operating. HBO Max and Warner Bros. also agreed to a floor for these fees: $10 million or 25 percent of the film’s net production cost, whichever is greater.
In the eyes of some agents, this is unfair self-dealing. They believe that WarnerMedia had an obligation to maximize value for the profit participants — to make a good-faith effort to see what prices other companies might have paid for the Warner Bros. movies before selling them to itself. The licensing fee does not appear to be connected to the value each movie will create for HBO Max in the form of subscriptions or engagement.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I’d love to take a shit on ATT for this, but I have a hard time sypathizing with people who’re gonna get less millions that they would’ve… it’s still millions bro… what the fuck…
I do hope the “lesser” employees, meaning the folkes who worked to make those movies (costumers, FX peeps, caterers, stuntpeople, stage hands, etc…) didn’t get the shaft. Producers and top paid actors? fuck off…
-
-
Christopher Nolan Rips HBO Max as “Worst Streaming Service,” Denounces Warner Bros.’ Plan
To many insiders, WarnerMedia’s blindsiding of talent and their reps with news that it would send 17 films directly to HBO Max in 2021 felt like an insult.
For many in the movie business — producers, directors, stars and their representatives — Dec. 3, 2020, is a day that will live in infamy.
“Some of our industry’s biggest filmmakers and most important movie stars went to bed the night before thinking they were working for the greatest movie studio and woke up to find out they were working for the worst streaming service,” filmmaker Christopher Nolan, whose relationship with Warners dates back to Insomnia in 2002, said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.
Added Nolan: “Warner Bros. had an incredible machine for getting a filmmaker’s work out everywhere, both in theaters and in the home, and they are dismantling it as we speak. They don’t even understand what they’re losing. Their decision makes no economic sense, and even the most casual Wall Street investor can see the difference between disruption and dysfunction.”
On that now-infamous morning, Ann Sarnoff — whose ungainly title is chair and CEO of WarnerMedia Studios and Networks Group — and Warner Bros. film studio chairman Toby Emmerich called the heads of the major agencies to drop a bombshell: Warners was about to smash the theatrical window, sweeping its entire 17-picture 2021 film slate onto its faltering HBO Max streaming service, debuting them on the same day they would open in whatever theaters could admit customers.
Surprisingly to some in the industry, sources say the idea was the brainchild of Warner Bros. COO Carolyn Blackwood who, looking at a relatively weak 2021 slate, saw an opportunity to avoid the humiliation of potentially bad grosses while currying favor with streamer-obsessed higher-ups.
The instant response in Hollywood was outrage and a massive girding for battle. “Warners has made a grave mistake,” says one top talent agent. “Never have this many people been this upset with one entity.” Like others, he had spent much of the day dealing with calls from stunned and angry clients. And that swooshing sound you hear? It’s the lawyers, stropping their blades as they prepare for battle: that Warners was self-dealing in shifting these movies to its own streamer, perhaps, or that the company acted in bad faith. Some talent reps say the decision affects not only profit participants but others who have worked on films as the move might affect residual payments. They expect and hope that the guilds will get involved. (The Writers Guild of America declined to comment.)
The Warners move poses big, maybe even existential questions: How do theaters survive this supposedly onetime, excused-by-the-pandemic move? Genies are hard to put back in the bottle — and no one believes Warners intended this to be temporary, anyway. What damage will be done to exhibitors by training customers that if they sit on their sofas, the biggest movies will come? And will Warners face serious backlash from important producers, filmmakers, guilds and onscreen talent? “Warners was the quintessentially talent-friendly, filmmaker-friendly studio,” says one agent. “Now Warners isn’t the first place, second place or third place you want to go.”
Many in Hollywood think WarnerMedia opted for this drastic move to play to streaming-infatuated Wall Street and redo the botched launch of HBO Max, which has netted a dismal 8.6 million “activated” subscribers so far. But one prominent agent notes that the top executives at WarnerMedia and its parent — AT&T CEO John Stankey, WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar and, of course, Sarnoff — “don’t understand the movie business, and they don’t understand talent relations.”
While Kilar pays what is seen as lip service to movies, industry veterans say Warners is sacrificing the huge profit that comes from selling movies in multiple formats and on multiple platforms around the world.
Even before Warners made its play, there was grumbling among agents that Sarnoff, who has been on the job for more than a year, had yet to get acquainted with key players on the film side or make much of an impression at all. That’s why many are focusing their wrath on Emmerich. “Toby’s passion is only about managing up,” says one agent who represents major Warners talent.
By the weekend following the announcement, Emmerich was calling important filmmakers with projects set for 2022 to assure them that their movies wouldn’t be dropped on the streaming service without warning. “As if anyone would believe he had any control over the situation,” says one producer with a major Warner property. “Toby probably had a really bad weekend, not that I feel bad for him,” says one agent.
According to a source, Emmerich tried to soothe In the Heights director Jon M. Chu by pointing out that the movie was still getting a “global theatrical release.” But industry insiders say the studio is pretending that pirates won’t pounce as soon as these films are streaming on HBO Max. As soon as one does, there’s an “excellent version of the movie everywhere immediately,” notes one industry veteran.
WarnerMedia’s decision to attack without warning may be understandable given the blowback that was foreseeable. But to many insiders, blindsiding talent and their reps seemed like an insult. Sources say studio president Courtenay Valenti was the only Warner exec who dared to speak up about the need to reach out to key creative partners, but she was quickly hushed.
Much of this outrage will surely be mitigated if WarnerMedia is prepared to write big checks to all the profit participants in the films that have been moved. “It’s a critical time for them, at the highest level, to make this right with the talent,” says one rep. But agents say the guidance that’s been provided so far suggests that the company isn’t planning to offer what is now called “Wonder Woman money,” in honor of the rich deal the studio gave profit participants in Wonder Woman 1984 when that film was moved to HBO Max.
WarnerMedia had to shovel tens of millions at Gal Godot and the other key players because the company wants a third in the series. But that sets the bar high. Sources say even Suicide Squad director James Gunn, who is platform-agnostic, was not pleased when the studio followed its shocking announcement by floating a lackluster formula for compensating him and other profit participants in the film.
At minimum, WarnerMedia has opened the door to arduous negotiations with the major agencies over compensation for multiple profit participants in 17 movies. Did the Warners numbers crunchers, in projecting the cost of premiering its entire 2021 slate on HBO Max, factor in the cost of widely anticipated legal challenges? Industry insiders believe WarnerMedia may have opened itself up to those, especially as it is selling the movies to its own streaming platform when none of the profit participants has had a chance to figure out what Apple or Netflix might have paid for the opportunity to stream their projects day-and-date. Allegations of self-dealing are almost sure to follow.
Many think Legendary will be the first to file a legal challenge. The company fired off a previous lawyer letter after Netflix offered something north of $225 million for the rights to Godzilla vs. Kong, which has seen its release date moved from March 2020 to November to May 2021. Though Legendary financed 75 percent of the movie, Warners had the power to block the sale and did. Legendary asked whether the studio would then give it a deal to stream the movie on HBO Max — and got no clear answer until its executives woke up one December morning to find that the movie was going day-and-date on the service without the benefit of a negotiation. Legendary’s even more expensive picture, Dune, is getting the same treatment. The other companies that finance Warners movies, Village Roadshow and Bron, are also said to be aggrieved parties that might end up going to court.
And then there’s the talent. Dune director Denis Villeneuve is said to be among those who felt most strongly that a traditional big-screen release was essential for his film. Chu, who along with Lin-Manuel Miranda went through an intense courtship with multiple suitors for In the Heights and who had turned down a huge Netflix offer for Crazy Rich Asians because he cherishes the communal theatrical experience, told an associate he was “shell-shocked” after being informed of the Warners decision.
Sources say WarnerMedia insiders have been hoping that Disney will follow its lead and shift its slate to streaming. But Disney, which had seven billion-dollar-grossing movies last year, isn’t about to do that. Instead, it is moving some films to streaming, as it did with Hamilton and Artemis Fowl — likely Cruella and more — but an agent notes that the way Disney has handled the shift stands in stark contrast to what Warners has done. “They didn’t do a unilateral thing,” he says, adding that studio executives made pre-emptive calls to talent and their reps that helped smooth the process.
It’s also worth noting that Disney+, which has dwarfed HBO Max in terms of subscribers, has gotten a lot of mileage out of one original hit, The Mandalorian, which is based on an iconic movie property. “There’s never been a full-fledged franchise blockbuster launched on a streaming service,” observes an executive at a Warners competitor. “It starts with theaters and it starts with opening weekend.” And so far, those blockbusters have been the ones that generated merchandise sales and theme-park attractions.
Warners doesn’t have theme parks but it has reaped big benefits from movies that almost certainly would have been dropped onto HBO Max had the option been available at the time. Consider last year’s megahit Joker. Film studio chief Emmerich was not a fan of the project; it was defended by worldwide marketing president Blair Rich, who was recently pushed out. Emmerich lowballed on the budget to discourage director Todd Phillips from making it, and when the filmmaker persisted, sold off half the movie. Joker then became a cultural phenomenon that grossed more than a billion dollars worldwide, was honored with 11 Academy Award nominations and an Oscar for Joaquin Phoenix. Would any of that have happened had Joker been dropped onto HBO Max?
Despite their assertions to the contrary, many industry insiders believe that neither AT&T chairman Stankey nor Kilar has much interest in the legacy movie business. Kilar has said this move was made for the fans and told CNBC, “If we start our days and end our days focused on the customer, we’re going to lead the industry.”
That brings to mind a line in the new Netflix movie, Mank — a warning delivered to the upstart Orson Welles by grizzled veteran Herman Mankiewicz: “You, my friend, are an outsider, a self-anointed savior-hyphenate. They’re just waiting to loathe you.”
It also leaves out a long-standing Hollywood maxim: Content is king. And content comes from artists who aren’t always motivated purely by money. Says an agent who represents extremely important talent with business at Warners: “You had a decades-long legacy as being known as the most talent-friendly studio. Now you’ve gone from that to a studio that in starburst colors lit up a sign that says, ‘We don’t give a fuck about talent.’”
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I think they’re exagerating, cinemas won’t dies, though they might be forced to adapt and that’s a good thing for the consumers.
I tend to agree.
While the standard keeps improving (bigger TVs, better sound and picture etc) home viewing has had really no impact at all on cinema attendance in the UK and Ireland. It’s the only territory I know that records actual tickets sales rather than just monetary value. The trend is positive since the early 80s as this chart shows (it ends in 2011 but Variety reported 2018 had the highest admissions since 1970 so the trend continues.
What will impact is if cinemas have to close due to no revenue for such a long period and also people getting out of the habit and more used to Netflix etc. Cinemas have to keep ensuring they improve the quality of experience which can be seen in places, the fastest growing sector in UK cinemas are independents that tend to have better seating, food and drink options than the multiplexes.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I mean, the hysteria is a little bit ridiculous here… People are throwing around the words “streaming services”, “better home-viewing tech” and “piracy” while completely ignoring that these past few years have been record breaking world-wide in terms of overall revenue and attendance (led by Disney, sure, but still).
I understand the want to make more money, and I understand some directors wanting their movies to go to cinemas… but 2020 has been a world changer, and 2021 will be basically the same, maybe just ride the wave of REALLY shitty times for everyone? And then see what’s what.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
After a tense negotiation, Warner Bros., which is owned by AT&T, agreed that Ms. Gadot and Ms. Jenkins would each get more than $10 million, according to two people with knowledge of the deals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private agreements.
I heard Chris Pine got car fare home, so that’s something, right?
.
Right?!
.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Looks like MGM is exploring a possible sale.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/22/hollywood-giant-mgm-puts-itself-up-for-sale-at-5bn
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
That’s like one week of pocket money for Apple.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Dune might be out of the HBO Max deal:
Legendary’s Fight Against Warner Bros. Could Save ‘Dune’ from HBO Max — Report
As reported by Deadline: “Legendary is in a big fight that might result in lawsuits after it financed 75% of tentpoles ‘Dune’ and ‘Godzilla Vs. Kong’ and was completely blindsided. Rumors have the solution to that breach being to preserve ‘Dune’ as a traditional theatrical to preserve its franchise potential and since its October 1 release date falls well after the estimated late spring date when Covid vaccines should achieve herd immunity. ‘Godzilla Vs. Kong’ might stay an HBO Max hybrid in its May 21 slot, but only if Warner Bros. makes a deal with Legendary that uses as a base the $250 million value established when the film was shopped earlier to Netflix.”
Deadline originally reported that Legendary’s biggest issue with moving “Dune” to a hybrid release model was that it could impact the long-term commercial viability of the franchise. “Dune,” directed by Denis Villeneuve, is the first entry in a planned two-part adaptation of Frank Herbert’s novel. The movie is also set to lay the groundwork for a television series.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
The movie is also set to lay the groundwork for a television series.
Ah, that’s good to know. It really wouldn’t be a good idea to do the other books as movies, but they’d make for a great TV show.
(And don’t you fuckers dare post images from that piece of shit SciFi channel series in response to this post!)2 users thanked author for this post.
-
The Children of Dune one wasn’t as horrible as the first mini series…
-
(And don’t you fuckers dare post images from that piece of shit SciFi channel series in response to this post!)
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Ah, that’s good to know. It really wouldn’t be a good idea to do the other books as movies, but they’d make for a great TV show. (And don’t you fuckers dare post images from that piece of shit SciFi channel series in response to this post!)
As long as the writers aren’t too timid about readapting it in ways that are not tied too much to the novels. Even the first novel starts to fall apart about halfway through.
Sony Pictures: Boom in Director Interest After Warner Bros HBO Max Shift | IndieWire
“After the Warner Bros announcement, it’s been a bit of a boom for us because it’s made dating our movies next year somewhat easier,” Vinciquerra said this week during an interview with CNBC (via The Verge). “But the real benefit has been the number of incoming calls from talent, creators, actors, and directors to us saying, ‘We want to be doing business with you because we know you’re a theatrical distributor and producer.’ That has worked very well for us.”
Still, I’m not sure Sony’s problems have emerged from an absence of talent on its movies.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
The question there is when they are up and running what the theatres do? Disney tried in the UK to experiment taking the 90 days down to 60 for Alice in Wonderland a decade or so back. One of the big chains just refused to show it, there was a lot of heated discussion, the cinema chain eventually agreed to show it but all Disney releases after that went back to 90 days. So effectively the chain won.
The answer will be, as usual, how the money falls. After Covid the cinemas may not have the finances to stare down the studios, equally the demand for VOD may diminish a lot when we can go out so it doesn’t make a huge difference.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Chapek said the fact that 50% of its subscribers globally do not have kids was a key driver and an unexpected one.
Was it really unexpected? Are they that clueless? I mean, granted, most of D+ content is kid oriented crap, but the SW and Marvel stuff has a very wide range of appeal…
-
Chapek said the fact that 50% of its subscribers globally do not have kids was a key driver and an unexpected one.
Was it really unexpected? Are they that clueless? I mean, granted, most of D+ content is kid oriented crap, but the SW and Marvel stuff has a very wide range of appeal…
Couple that with the fact that a lot of young adults grew up watching a lot of the kid centic programming on D+ and it shouldn’t surprise people that nostalgia would probably bring in a lot of child-less subscribers looking to revisit some old favorites during these times.
-
-
-
Amazon Said to Make $9 Billion Offer for MGM
https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/amazon-mgm-acquisition-talks-9-billion-1234975168/
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Think what this could mean for the future of the Basic Instinct franchise!
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
The real financial value behind this deal is the treasure trove of IP in the deep catalog that we plan to reimagine and develop together with MGM’s talented team.
Finally we get our Jake Lamotta v Hannibal Lecter movie.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Yes I agree. It seems like a pretty good buy in terms of the content it gives them.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Box Office: ‘Black Widow’ Poised to Capture Pandemic-Era Record With $87.8 Million Debut
Not bad under the circumstances.
Obviously there’s all the paid Disney+ viewings to add to that too.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
This article seems very excited about streaming but this one:
<span style=”color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>Handler notes that some 2 million households — about 60-80 million people, he speculated — have already seen the movie at home.</span>
So he’s estimating 30-40 people per household. Was he raised in a commune or something?
-
I wondered about that too, whether login-sharing and viewing parties were being factored in or something. But even so that seems ridiculously high.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Exactly, I mean obviously you would multiply for households but 30-40?
If he’d have said 10 I would think it’s still high but in the realms of possibility. It would need everyone to share their full allocation and have viewing parties, outside of the world of sitcoms when I’ve actually been to homes in the US I didn’t see lounges that seat 40 people comfortably. 😂
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Maybe they put it up on the stadium TV as the warm up to the Euro 2020 final.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Ben Affleck on Why ‘The Last Duel’ Bombed and What He Thinks of Ridley Scott Blaming Millennials
“Really, the truth is that I’ve had movies that didn’t work that bombed, that weren’t good. It’s very easy to understand that and why it happened. The movie is shit, people don’t want to see it, right? This movie, The Last Duel, I really like. It’s good and it plays — I saw it play with audiences and now it’s playing well on streaming. It wasn’t one of those films that you say, ‘Oh boy, I wish my movie had worked.’ Instead, this is more due to a seismic shift that I’m seeing, and I’m having this conversation with every single person I know. Though there are various iterations, the conversation is the same: How is [the movie business] changing?
One of the fundamental ways it’s changing is that the people who want to see complicated, adult, non-IP dramas are the same people who are saying to themselves, ‘You know what? I don’t need to go out to a movie theater because I’d like to pause it, go to the bathroom, finish it tomorrow.’ It’s that, along with the fact that you can watch with good quality at home. It’s not like when I was a kid and the TV at home was an 11-inch black-and-white TV. I mean, you can get a 65-inch TV at Walmart for $130. There’s good quality out there and people are at home streaming in Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. It’s all changed.
And you know what? I knew it was changing before the pandemic hit with The Way Back. I remember feeling like, shit, I really love this movie, and no one’s going to see it. I could just tell; it’s not going to land in the theaters. People don’t want to go see dramas. Then the pandemic hit, and ironically, one of the first few films that was rushed to streaming was The Way Back, and people did see it. I said, ‘You know what? This isn’t bad.’ I would rather have people see this and watch it, and I don’t need to be stuck to the old ways [of doing business].
The theatrical experience is great, I love the theatrical experience, but the business has changed over time. First it was Vaudeville, and then silent pictures, and then the talkies, and then color, and the radio came out and everybody said it was going to kill movies. TV came out and everybody said it would kill movies. Every time it’s the same, people watch stories that move them in different ways [on different platforms]. I think that’s okay.
Actually, the good news is — and I don’t have the numbers in front of me right now — but I would strongly guess that people are watching more [content] now, and are consuming more. So, that’s a good thing and one of the reasons for it is that streamers are doing such great stuff. I mean, the content is spectacular. Succession? Spectacular! Ozark? Spectacular! When I started in this business, television, per se, was okay. It was serial programmers creating content and some of the shows were done great but they were still one thing and movies were trying to be art. That’s not the case anymore. You see shows on streaming that are just magnificent.
A lot of the time, and I’m even guilty of this myself, I can lament it. I went to see one movie theatrically. That movie was Licorice Pizza. There are probably two or three directors, people like Paul Thomas Anderson and Quentin Tarantino, who have people saying, ‘Okay, I’m going to see two or three movies in the theater this year, I’ll go see theirs.’ I think you’re going to see 40 movies at least [released] each year now. When Gone Baby Gone came out [a 2007 film directed by Ben Affleck and starring Casey Affleck], there were something like 600 movies being released every year. We had seven movies debuting on the same weekend. It was really difficult, and I think maybe [The Last Duel] would’ve done better on streaming because the way [studios and streamers] have of identifying and marketing directly to people who like it is really effective. For God’s sake, think of this movie, [The Tender Bar], I mean, Amazon has an enormous reach. Everybody uses Amazon. They may be buying groceries, refrigerators, whatever, but they still use it and you can reach people that way. I think you have to adapt with the times or you risk becoming a dinosaur, as my children tell me.”
-
Interesting editorial from Affleck. I think the “business” of moviemaking has to be overhauled; if more and more feature films are going to debut simultaneously or exclusively on a streaming service, something needs to be done to make sure these films make back their costs and everyone gets proper compensation. I’m thinking of the Scarlett Johansson legal issues with Disney over her BLACK WIDOW percentages; she has enough clout to be able to renegotiate her terms, but what about the other cast and crew members who don’t have that kind of clout?
-
Streaming services have become the home to movies that would have struggled or flat bombed at the box office. Granted, every once in a while those long shots do hit the jackpot.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole process changes starting at the point the movie is pitched and the initial budgets are created. That will determine which path that movie will take and what the budget will be. I would imagine advertising would be significantly lower for a streaming movie than a theatrical release. That could be a huge plus for a movie that may do just okay.
-
Agreed. Prior to COVID there was a fork in the road where the choice was made to head toward a big-screen release or straight-to-Netflix/Hulu/Prime; but the pandemic eliminated one of those options for over a year, and now that the option is back it isn’t necessarily considered the best option anymore due to the expense of advertising and distributing to the multiplex.
While I miss experience of actually leaving the house to “go to the movies”, if I’m honest with myself I think I prefer seeing a first-run film from the comfort of my own home. I understand that some films (TENET, DUNE, etc) would have been a more powerful experience on a big screen, but (as Ben Affleck points out above) I have a big-screen TV at home, and the snacks are cheaper here.
-
I’m still not sure of the economics of it all though. As things have opened up more we are seeing a shift back to cinema exclusive releases. Disney’s move with Black Widow for a pay per view on demand option haven’t been repeated with their next films as far as I know.
I think the reasoning may be while a lot of people would be happy viewing at home I don’t know how much they are willing to pay for it. I missed Eternals in the cinema because I usually take the kids and at the time they weren’t allowing unvaccinated under 18s, now I’ve missed it there I’m happy really to do a Todd and ‘wait for cable’ (or when it goes on Disney+ standard package). Where they would have got half the cost of 4 movie tickets from me they won’t get anything extra now as I’d be subscribed to D+ anyway for the TV content.
As Todd mentions though we probably are already seeing it with mid-budget material that the streamers are becoming a better option. Cinema has been moving gradually to more of a spectacle thing with VFX heavy action. I can’t see a situation again when mid budget drama and comedy like Rocky or Crocodile Dundee or Ghost were topping the annual box office.
-
I’m still not sure of the economics of it all though. As things have opened up more we are seeing a shift back to cinema exclusive releases. Disney’s move with Black Widow for a pay per view on demand option haven’t been repeated with their next films as far as I know. I think the reasoning may be while a lot of people would be happy viewing at home I don’t know how much they are willing to pay for it.
This is the big question at the heart of it all for me.
The multiple of what people are prepared to pay at the cinema versus what people are prepared to pay at home (where having access to huge amounts of content is dirt cheap thanks to the streaming services) is so huge that if you shifted a lot of these mid-tier releases to home viewing only, it would have a huge impact on their earning potential and so budget.
I think we’ll probably see a continuing polarisation where we get lower budgets for mid-tier movies that go straight to streaming, and cinema releases more geared towards gigantic-budget spectacle movies, with an increasing erosion of the stuff in the middle that’s expensive but relatively niche. Which to be fair has already been happening for quite a while now, covid has just accelerated it.
-
-
-
Yeah it’s a bit of a mix I think. There is definitely DTV quality (or lack thereof) stuff on Netflix but they’ve also had stuff like The Irishman or Annihilation or The Old Guard that would normally be cinema fare with big names involved.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Looks like Spidey is on course to do pretty Amazing numbers even in spite of everything:
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Spidey is on $587m globally in less than a week. Crazy stuff. Sony must be delighted.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
The End of an Era: The CW Network Is For Sale After 15 Years
Oh how the once mighty can fall.
As first reported in The Wall Street Journal, WarnerMedia and ViacomCBS are looking to sell their joint TV venture The CW. The network was first formed in 2006, following a merger of the CBS owned UPN network and Warner Brothers owned The WB.
The Wall Street Journal identifies Nexstar Media Group as the most interested buyer at the moment. Nexstar is a giant in cable, owning almost 200 local channels along with the political publication The Hill.
The CW was a daring endeavor that looked to target a younger demographic. It first made its name with the original series Gossip Girl and high school hits like 90210 and The Vampire Diaries. The series eventually incorporated a broader slate with the rise of its Arrowverse based on the DC properties owned by WarnerMedia, and its Archie Comics universe started by the insane hit that is Riverdale.
The news of this sale came as a surprise to many as there hadn’t been much press of problems at the network. Due to the popularity of much of its programming and its infamous status as a fixture of teenager-focused television, it felt like The CW had a comfortable status.
But there has been trouble brewing. The CW has never been a profitable venture, and often had some of the lowest rated series renewed for consecutive seasons. Much of its wider audience came from a lucrative deal with Netflix that put new seasons of every show on the streamer after two weeks of the season ending. This helped lead to the expanding popularity of shows like All American and Riverdale.The motivation for WarnerMedia and CBS to get out of the broadcast business is likely motivated by the desire to build their own streaming platforms. Both have recently launched their services with huge pushes for both original and legacy content. WarnerMedia has HBO Max, which is already the streaming home for several of their CW productions like Superman and Lois and Stargirl. Meanwhile CBS has the new Paramount+, an expansion of the former CBS All Access. It’s unknown what the fate of many of The CW’s shows on Netflix would be, but it’s assumed the deal would eventually put an end to their availability on the flagship streamer.
During its 15-year run, The CW was always one of the most accessible content channels, with free episodes and entire series available over the air, on its website, and on the streaming service CWSeed. That included many short-run series on other networks, like Pushing Daisies and Almost Human.
It’s also uncertain what would happen to the licensing deals with Archie Comics and DC that sustain much of The CW’s programming if the network sells.
The sale of The CW would be a sorry end to the daring venture that catered to younger audiences without looking down on them. It marks the end of the cable TV era and signals the massive move of the entertainment industry toward individual streaming services and away from ease of audience accessibility.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I could almost hear Somewhere Only We Know playing in the background while reading that.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
SAG-AFTRA is officially going on strike.
This is the first time both the actors & writers are on strike in over 60 years. pic.twitter.com/1S4Xnq3bdp
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) July 13, 2023
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Bob, who gets $25m at least a year, wants to talk about disturbing stuff? OK then:
Truly reprehensible shit. https://t.co/goO3UkhINk
— austin walker (@austin_walker) July 13, 2023
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Maybe we can just let Hollywood be for a little bit. It had a good run. Just stop and give people a chance to catch up on their archives, revisit old favourites and check out some of that sweet, sweet international fare. Bump everyone up to Vancouver and let them build a newer, less problematic version of the thing.
-
Wow. And I thought that Dark Mirror ep was a bit over the top. Jesus.
The two central points seems to be the AI thing and that the studios have used the switch to streaming to fuck the actors over when it comes to residuals. Both of which are more than reasonable points. Fuck Bob Iger for making them sound greedy. And, well, just fuck Bob Iger in general, obviously.
-
There are move existing movies and TV shows I have never watched than I have time for in my remaining lifetime. If Hollywood shut down tomorrow, it wouldn’t impact me at all.
Of course, I would feel bad for all the people losing their jobs. But let’s not kid ourselves that the audience *needs* Hollywood to put out new shit every year.
-
By that same argument, people might as well stop writing novels or creating music.
Art and entertainment reflect, and to some extent influence, our society. Individually, you can make the decision to bury yourself in past work – and, I mean, nothing against like scholars who exclusively study 18th century literatur or something – but on a societal level, that just won’t fly.
In other words, yes, I believe we do need Hollywood to put out new shit every year. Skipping a few months shouldn’t be that bad though.
-
No commentary needed:
Bob Iger's Yacht.
He believes Actors and writers are asking too much.@sagaftra #ActorsStrike #USA #Canada #UK #Australia #SAGAFTRA #SAGAFTRAstrong #SAGstrikehttps://t.co/jjYJPlKJXL pic.twitter.com/3J0tw7yPJq
— Dennis Koch (@DennisKoch10) July 15, 2023
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
By that same argument, people might as well stop writing novels or creating music.
Art and entertainment reflect, and to some extent influence, our society. Individually, you can make the decision to bury yourself in past work – and, I mean, nothing against like scholars who exclusively study 18th century literatur or something – but on a societal level, that just won’t fly.
In other words, yes, I believe we do need Hollywood to put out new shit every year. Skipping a few months shouldn’t be that bad though.
I agree that contemporary art – in any medium – is important to society.
I disagree that contemporary entertainment is. I think entertainment is not tied to a time period. If you haven’t heard a piece of music from the 1960s, it’s just as “new” to _you_ as something recorded last week.
I also don’t believe that American media puts out very much contemporary entertainment anyway. Almost everything we see on our screen is a remake, an adaption, or a continuation, of properties decades old. The only thing contemporary about most of it is the production technology.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
I would argue that the attitude that contemporary entertainment doesn’t have value largely plays into studio executives hands. Apathy from the general public about these strikes is exactly what executives want. And Hollywood execs already have an easier time than most when it comes to selling actors and writers as greedy. Because when the general public thinks of actors and writers they only think of the most successful ones and then believe everyone working in these guilds are also successful. Which of course isn’t the case.
Generally speaking, we should all be standing up against corporate greed and be loudly supportive of striking workers. A prolonged strike will hurt the average worker far more than it will the multibillion companies and their wealthy shareholders, which is why the workers need as much public support as they can get. Improved workers rights can potentially ultimately benefit everyone, even if you couldn’t care less about the specific product/industry.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Because when the general public thinks of actors and writers they only think of the most successful ones and then believe everyone working in these guilds are also successful. Which of course isn’t the case.
Plus, there’s Tom Cruise successful and there’s “Playing side characters on CSI-like show, but I can actually live off this job, even if I barely scrape by” successful – because relatively speaking, that is successful as far as writers and actors go.
-
It’s interesting that the unions have allowed A24 to keep making films because they already agreed to the terms.
A great example that this isn’t really about financial feasibility, like all of this stuff it is corporate profits and shareholder dividends. If A24 can afford it then Disney and Warners can.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.