-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Disney says they "still believe in the value of the theatrical business" but concede they "will take each film on a case-by-case basis"
- Thread starter Serene
- Start date
If Netflix can get 150 million people to pay $10 per month don't you think the biggest IPs in the world can get people to drop $20-30 on their next big marvel movie?
Hell you could probably sell $40-50 extra editions to the hardcore fans.
OP
OP
Netflix is getting people to pay for a very vast library featuring a ton of stuff
you are comparing that to a single title
The New Mutants Movie Was (Briefly) Available for Pre-Order on Amazon - IGN
The New Mutants, 20th Century Studios' long-delayed X-Men spin-off movie, was briefly made available for pre-order on Amazon Prime, which was curious because the Marvel Comics adaptation had been meant for a theatrical release.
If any movie is going to test the waters for Video-on-demand, it's New Mutants. Onward doesn't really count as it had advanced public screenings.
Funny you mention this, Disney's dominance in the entertainment industry can arguably be pinpointed to this. Paramount split their theatre chain business as United Paramount Theatres, they then acquired ABC to enter into the television industry. United Paramount Theatres was re-branded as American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres after the acquisition, and then they renamed to American Broadcasting Companies.
Capital Cities then acquired American Broadcasting Companies (American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres) and the two companies was merged as Capital Cities/ABC Inc. Bob Iger worked for Capital Cities/ABC Inc, and once Disney acquired the television conglomerate, it was re-branded as Disney-ABC Television Group, and that's how Bob Iger got integrated into The Walt Disney Company.
Nah, if I was Kevin Feige, I would just make Wolverine a member of Alpha Flight so we can get an Alpha Flight trilogy.
Universal claimed over $100M in revenue over the first few weeks - less than the first movie, but it resulted in more profit due not needing to cut in theaters.
How much do people think it costs to market and deliver this content? They aren't included in a film's budget, they're included in the studios budget. Blockbuster figures are heavily weighed by ancillary costs that would barely exist with VOD.
That $1 or $2 billion blockbuster would only need a fraction of that revenue if delivered through VOD to make that back. That's why studios are saying they need to evaluate on a case by case basis because it isn't a simple "movie cost X, we earned Y, we make more in the cinemas", it doesn't work that way.
We are undoubtedly entering a time where there will be a hybrid release model and I'm sure the major blockbusters will hit cinemas first but the pandemic will change consumer habits for a number of years by which point they may be changed for good.
That $1 or $2 billion blockbuster would only need a fraction of that revenue if delivered through VOD to make that back. That's why studios are saying they need to evaluate on a case by case basis because it isn't a simple "movie cost X, we earned Y, we make more in the cinemas", it doesn't work that way.
We are undoubtedly entering a time where there will be a hybrid release model and I'm sure the major blockbusters will hit cinemas first but the pandemic will change consumer habits for a number of years by which point they may be changed for good.
Studios would also have to push home video release windows way back. Why would you play anymore than $25 for a VOD screening, when you can just wait another 3 months & buy the movie for the same price & watch it as many times as you want forever? We'd go back to waiting upwards of a year for the home video release to get people to need to watch it. The point of the theatre is to see it displayed in it's purest form where you can't see it anywhere else. If you're just watching it on your own TV; why not wait 3 more months & just buy it over a single rental viewing? I mean, I guess it plays on the "need it now" mentality. But personally, if my only options are VOD or buying a couple months later; I'd rather just wait & actually own it. Unless VOD price is significantly lower than what a blu-ray would run me.
And none of these Netflix offers have the reach of Star Wars, Marvel or other big movies.
20-30$ isn't exactly a high price and i'm willing to bet there are enough faithfuls that would buy these movies on day 1 (or even special editions) to make them profitable.
Why would you pay more than $25 to go see a movie in a cinema when you can buy it 3 months later?
I'd gladly pay $50 to see a new release at home because it means I don't need a babysitter and I don't have to deal with crowds or overpriced food. There are very few films that people would pay for the "theater experience" if given the choice on day 1.
Why would you need to do less marketing for a movie in VOD than theaters? Common sense dictates the opposite. You need to completely re-educate the US population about WHERE to see a new release movie - and that's going to be reflected in the marketing. Plus without theaters, you have fewer people exposed to new trailers - so film marketers have to find entirely new strategies for onboarding audiences.
Are you actually arguing people get their new movie marketing from cinemas instead of YouTube, instagram or Facebook? What is this 2005?
Because you have the entire content delivery network. You're not paying for cardboard cut outs or posters at every cinema and you're not spamming every media outlet to get people to go to the cinema to discover it.
How much does Netflix spend on marketing their series compared to say a blockbuster movie? You certainly advertise a service but you greatly reduce the need to advertise content once you have people using your platform.
I don't know any theater that charges $25 for a ticket(to be perfectly honest, I don't know any theater ticket over $18 & that's for IMAX 3D) but I was just going on the speculation of prices & using a smaller end in this thread about upwards of $50; christ. But again, $50 to watch it once when the home video released would be half of that in a short turnaround time?
The problem isn't getting video to people - it's getting them to watch it. Theaters are a captive audience - they're going to watch whatever trailer is attached. But if that's not a factor - the same audience would all need to voluntarily decide to watch that same trailer. Seemingly a small hurdle - but it makes a world of a difference towards exposing people to media they aren't already familiar with. Factor in network effects of people discussing that trailer after seeing it for themselves - and you see the value of a guaranteed audience.
I don't know many people who attend a movie on their own either. Where I am the usual adult ticket is $17, $50 is merely two adults + a minimal amount of concessions.
My point is why do people pay to go to the cinema in the first place? Often the convenience and price of doing it at home is preferred and many movies offer little value in the "theater experience" unless it's a major blockbuster.
So instead you're paying those same outlets to get people to go to iTunes or Amazon Video and buy it there. All while communicating that this is a new major release, and that it's worth a far higher price than any other at-home video rental you've ever paid for.
Sure, you save on printing some posters & cardboard standees. But then you also have fewer people exposed to those films, because those posters and standees don't exist.
Movie marketing is entirely a game of keeping people aware of a product until it is available. Theaters are a barrage of this marketing - constant superliminal reminders that an upcoming film exists. Losing that advertising space means companies need to overspend as they rework an entire American cultural institution.
I'd say they pay to watch a movie on a 40-50 foot screen with the highest quality audio system. Not sure many folks have one of those sitting around their house.
Official Endgame trailer has like 300 million views on YouTube alone that's 10 times more than you get with any theatre trailer campaign. People talk about the new marvel or Star Wars trailers all the time even if they only see it on YouTube. Your argument makes no sense considering there are atleast another 50 million views on various trailer reaction videos or discussions.
Where has it been established that iTunes or Amazon Video are the content delivery platforms of choice. Disney has their own delivery network, keeping those people aware is a non-issue.
Almost every smart TV platform on the planet has targeted advertising these days, I'm not saying marketing would cease to exist but currently the marketing to cinema attendance model isn't tightly coupled like it could be for VOD.
I think movie budgets will shrink. Subject matter will diversify, leading to higher profits in more specific demographics.
More people will be willing to buy a VOD if the movie is priced well and targeted correctly.
This will mean a slowdown in the number of high priced blockbusters targeted towards crowds and a theater atmosphere.
More people will be willing to buy a VOD if the movie is priced well and targeted correctly.
This will mean a slowdown in the number of high priced blockbusters targeted towards crowds and a theater atmosphere.
You're grossly overstating the quality of your average theater and the need for that experience for the vast majority of movies. Your average cinema would play 150 movies per year, maybe 1 or 2 of them would be "must have experiences" in a theater.
Yes, because that's literally the biggest film in cinema history. It was able to get that immediate attention by making 22 beloved movies first.
Consider just about any non-super-blockbuster. If you're not a known name, convincing people to actually watch the trailer is not an automatic feat.
So instead of spending money on cinema ads you now spend your money on social media ads and most likely still reach a way bigger audience than in cinemas while also reaching a more targeted audience.
Disney's not putting these movies on Disney+, though - unless they're interested in setting several billion dollars in fire. So in addition to communicating WHERE these movies are, they also have to establish where they AREN'T - and why you shouldn't just wait until it hits Disney+. Hell, Onward hit D+ just a few weeks after VOD - why wouldn't Mulan be the same?
It's an extremely complex marketing task.
Looked up my receipt for Endgame to be sure. Yes, going to the movies is expensive y'all.
I would totally jump on a reasonably priced stream for Black Widow. Like, $25 at most. I would maybe go up to $40 if you let me just keep a digital copy of the movie.
I would totally jump on a reasonably priced stream for Black Widow. Like, $25 at most. I would maybe go up to $40 if you let me just keep a digital copy of the movie.
Cool. So you're now paying for ad space that younger consumers are hardwired to skip automatically, if not block from the OS level. Go ask Birds of Prey how well a big social media spend goes for you.
It's a far easier marketing task than having marketing delivery networks and strategies in every country, negotiating with theater chains in every country, dealing with ratings bodies in every country etc.
Even if they delivered the content on 20 different VOD networks, it's vastly less complex than dealing with a physical network required for theaters.
It doesn't make sense for every movie and would be dealt with on a case by case basis, but for the vast majority of films it makes a lot of sense and carries a lot more predictability.
I don't know what theater chain you frequent but, pretty much every theater I've ever been to in my city has had far superior screens & audio quality to anything I could buy from a Best Buy or Target.
Regardless, this would still eat into profits for a studio. I mean, what's to stop you from renting a VOD & inviting a bunch of people over to watch it once the stay-at-home is over? That tanks potential profits because that's a whole slew of tickets not being sold vs each person having to pay for a viewing.
And yet for everyone blocking or skipping your ad you get 3 people noticing it that would have never seen it in a cinema
Oh, this only gets worse when you consider international markets. VOD releases currently guarantee a crystal clear copy is available for piracy at the same time as any other online storefront. So as you tackle markets with far more cultural leniency towards piracy (which will only grow as they offer all Hollywood content with immediate availability) - you have to develop new DRM procedures, deals with international storefronts to establish a new product class, and convince cultures who just adopted the cinema format to download new movies rather than partake in them communally (which is also an issue in the US, to be clear).
Not to mention the pure logistics of dealing movies to developing markets where cinemas are available - but reliable & high-quality home video is not. And don't expect any of the existing cinema chains to screen just for those markets - because they're mostly owned by the same people who own the US chains you just fucked out of existence.
There are so many movies that I discover from seeing the trailer in front of a movie compared to how I would almost never see the trailer otherwise. You bring up Endgame, but everyone is watching that because A) it's the new Marvel movie, and B) it's the ending to a long series of Marvel movies. Everyone knows it's coming ahead of time; everyone knows what Endgame is. They're dying to see it and they're already aware. Now how do you get people to click on a trailer for some unknown movie they never heard of? That's much more difficult than someone discovering it because it happened to play in front of them while they were waiting to watch Endgame in the theater.
How much of Netflix's stuff gets lost in the shuffle because it's in a vast sea of selection on their service though? One of the things that movies in theaters have going for it is the fact that there's a limited selection at any time and that limited choice makes choices stand out more.
If this were accurate, I think a lot of movies would have performed far better than they actually have after heavily investing in social media marketing.
Having a trailer in theaters also isn't a huge burden for studios, because cinemas also have an incentive to run the trailer & encourage repeat business.
Anybody rocking s King Kota avatar is ok in my book. That being said, what do you mean it's illegal for them to own a theatre chain? Is it hyperbole, or is something else going on?
There is a literal Supreme Court ruling preventing a studio from owning the entire production-to-distribution pipeline.
Piracy is always going to be a major issue but outside of major blockbusters, many films are released internationally months after it is released in the US or even as it's available for purchase because of marketing spend, burden and ratings agencies.
I'm not arguing that cinemas are going away but there is undeniably demand and a need for change. Theaters served a need but now you can get 60-70% of the experience at home, for the vast majority of movies that is perfectly sufficient AND may be cost advantageous for studios as it finds a new market segment and reduces costs. As it stands, many movies simply don't get made because the theatrical release model carries a significant amount of upfront outlay and significant risk of loss. Close to 50% of movies make a loss at the cinema.
OP
OP
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. - Wikipedia
It was ruled by the Supreme Court that studios cannot own theaters, as it is in violation of antitrust law. Though the DOJ moved to remove the decree late last year so it's up in the air right now.
20 to 30$ for one movie when you have Netflix right next to it?
You're not going to reach anywhere close to the millions of people you would in a theater.
The difference is that usually those films haven't been professionally subtitled or given a home release by the time they hit international cinemas. Under a VOD system, you'd have the same quality product as what's being sold domestically available online for free.
And if anything, day-one VOD only speeds up the current system where only huge blockbusters are seen as 'event movies'. The only other movie Universal plans to dump on VOD is a Judd Apatow comedy, and Warner just pushed a new Seth Rogen movie to HBO MAX rather than wait until it can screen in cinemas. The current situation has shown what movies big studios see less profit in - and audiences are responding in kind. They will pay less for certain genres - which means some genres are just gonna cease to exist.
It's not uncommon in big cities and big chains, but smaller local theaters are going to be much cheaper.
These are the prices at my theater:
I think students get a $1 off the adult price if they have their student ID.
So I don't think everyone is going to want to spend $75 on a new movie rental even if it's for their entire family. $25 is probably perfect. Hell, I'll pay $25 even if it's just me watching it depending on the movie.
If you guys think any college student is going to pay $20 for a VOD movie instead of going to Pirate Bay or 123movies...
Are they even gonna make a billion anyway? Especially pre-vaccine?
I always laugh when I read stuff like this.
A laughable month of isolation and closed stores and people (specially f'n higher ups) think the world has changed so much and there's no need to come back to certain things like cinemas.
Lmao. The reason why everyone is subscribing to streaming services and is watching so many streams IS the isolation. Since we're still humans, that will change so fast once this is over and everything is back to normal. When everyone is having a normal 9 to 5 job again and is being able to meet everyone everywhere again, they won't have much time for streaming anymore and I would even think that there would be some occasions where you are outside already and you could go to the cinema for a quick 2 hour flick but once you're at home you're too exhausted or have a lot of other things to do so it's not enough time in the end to enjoy a, with real money rented, stream.
A laughable month of isolation and closed stores and people (specially f'n higher ups) think the world has changed so much and there's no need to come back to certain things like cinemas.
Lmao. The reason why everyone is subscribing to streaming services and is watching so many streams IS the isolation. Since we're still humans, that will change so fast once this is over and everything is back to normal. When everyone is having a normal 9 to 5 job again and is being able to meet everyone everywhere again, they won't have much time for streaming anymore and I would even think that there would be some occasions where you are outside already and you could go to the cinema for a quick 2 hour flick but once you're at home you're too exhausted or have a lot of other things to do so it's not enough time in the end to enjoy a, with real money rented, stream.