Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

Apparently Rian Johnson followed Jessica Chastain recently.... she’d be great for this kind of film!

 

[Nick]

This franchise is so genius for being an anthology with Daniel Craig’s character as the only character that is a recurring character. It allows to have great ensemble casts like the first movie had and that this looks like.

 

[Tristan]

Very excited to announce that I was also cast in the film. Rian Johnson saw me on the street, picked me up and I'm now being held hostage. Expect an announcement in the next couple of hours!

 

[TheGentTrent]

Time for a title change!

 

[Nick]

So Netflix spent hundreds of millions just in acquiring the IP, and they're basically do the "A Star Wars Story" thing instead of calling the movie Knives Out: Glass Onion?

So many people are gonna be confused

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Love making the title mirror the themes and motif of the movies.

 

[Nick]

Love making the title mirror the themes and motif of the movies.

It's pretty similar to what any anthology series does where it has one main character and then a rotating ensemble. Murder On The Orient Express/Death On The Nile does the same thing with Hercule Poirot whereas these movies have Benoit Blanc. The Poirot movies aren't as good, but they're very similar in nature.

 

[Nick]

Unfortunately, Netflix is unwilling to do anything beyond a limited release in heaters, which is absolutely idiotic:

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Unfortunately, Netflix is unwilling to do anything beyond a limited release in heaters, which is absolutely idiotic:

How so? Netflix might be in more trouble than theaters at this point, why share their biggest asset since ST4?

 

[Nick]

How so? Netflix might be in more trouble than theaters at this point, why share their biggest asset since ST4?

They paid $450M for Knives Out 2 and 3. You’d think that they’d want to recoup their investment. Theatrical hits are just as popular on streaming (if not more) than films that are Netflix Originals.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

They paid $450M for Knives Out 2 and 3. You’d think that they’d want to recoup their investment. Theatrical hits pare just as popular on streaming (if not more) than films that are Netflix Originals.

I think the idea is to bump subscriber counts. If you let it go to theaters, you don’t get the residual subscriber fees from people who sign up just to watch it and then forget their subscription exists until $100 later.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

I just think plenty of people sub to Netflix already it’s going to be very difficult for them to grow, but, having movies like this exclusively I do think is where they’re kinda at right now. Make like $15-20 mil in theatres then hope subs up a bit so you make money on all fronts

 

[Nick]

I just think plenty of people sub to Netflix already it’s going to be very difficult for them to grow, but, having movies like this exclusively I do think is where they’re kinda at right now. Make like $15-20 mil in theatres then hope subs up a bit so you make money on all fronts

The first film made $165M domestic and over $300M worldwide, so they can make a lot more than $20M if they even just put it in theaters for like, 10-17 days (2-3 weeks).

 

[OrlandoGuy]

I just think plenty of people sub to Netflix already it’s going to be very difficult for them to grow, but, having movies like this exclusively I do think is where they’re kinda at right now. Make like $15-20 mil in theatres then hope subs up a bit so you make money on all fronts

Plenty of people, definitely, but they’re still losing subscribers at a pretty big clip, which is not only hurting revenue but also share price. The revenue you get from one hit in theaters pales compared to the revenue you make from the lifetime of a customer that would theoretically subscribe for more than just one month. I think it’s the right call.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Unfortunately, Netflix is unwilling to do anything beyond a limited release in heaters, which is absolutely idiotic:

What does limited mean in this context? I remember the Irishman played at practically every theater in my area for a few weeks, but that was in the Bay Area. Even the Gray Man came to Reno, but maybe Cinemark tends to do these speciality showings more often than, say, an AMC.

 

[Nick]

What does limited mean in this context? I remember the Irishman played at practically every theater in my area for a few weeks, but that was in the Bay Area. Even the Gray Man came to Reno, but maybe Cinemark tends to do these speciality showings more often than, say, an AMC.

It always means the Paris Theater that they own in New York and an LA release. They may release it in some other markets, but theaters are frustrated with Netflix. They want to play the movie, but they know Netflix isn't going to market it as a theatrical release so filling theaters with the movie almost is pointless if no one knows that they can see it in theaters.

It's sort of like when Disney releases a 20th Century movie with no promotion and it bombs and then there's articles with people wondering why a great film like The Last Duel, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Nightmare Alley, or West Side Story bomb at the box office. A film can't succeed if people don't even know that it's in theaters.

 

[TheGentTrent]

 

[graspthesun]

Every time I think about Netflix's stock price tanking and its current desire to cut costs to try to right the ship, I think about these two movies and laugh.

I'll definitely be watching this with the in-laws on Christmas Eve though.

 

[Nick]

Glass Onion to be the first Netflix film to play in a limited release of this capacity at all major theater chains. One week only before it hits Netflix one month later.

 

[Jerroddragon]

You can also use AMC A list.....so watching it in theaters for sure