Theatrical Future/PVOD Thread

[OLSinFLA]

Not necessarily. If it draws a crap ton of subscribers, it could be worth it. Streamers typically have a set amount of money they have for content each year. The goal of that money is essentially to bring in subscribers through having good content. Say a streamer spends $10B on content per year - $250M is just a drop in that bucket AND streaming movies/shows typically require FAR lower costing marketing campaigns than theatrical. Take WandaVision for example. They spent $150M on that show for 6 episodes and people are hyped as all hell to see it and Disney has put little to no effort into marketing it yet.

The only time you will see a budget that high is for a series. Never for a streaming movie. Thats just reality

 

[Nick]

The only time you will see a budget that high is for a series. Never for a streaming movie. Thats just reality

I really think you're in for an awakening in the coming years. Scorsese alone has been handed out checks for $250M for The Irishman on Netflix and $200M for the upcoming Killers of the Flower Moon on Apple TV+.

And Netflix did run an actual advertising campaign for The Irishman (unlike most of their content) and a subsequent Oscar campaign for the film, so they spent a TON of money on the film.

 

[quinnmac000]

Nolan stated he wasn’t the one who was in charge of US tenet release

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/christopher-nolan-warner-bros-tenet/2020/12/14/3974ca82-3e07-11eb-9453-fc36ba051781_story.html

On the other hand interesting
interview with Universal Pictures Chairman Donna Langley.

The Centrepiece interview: Universal’s Donna Langley talks PVoD alliances, remounting ‘Jurassic World 3’ and the studio’s 2021 plans

The chairman of Universal Filmed Entertainment Group reflects on a tumultuous 2020.

www.screendaily.com

One, there is no film output deal with the studio for Peacock so films won’t pull an HBO Max.

Two, past COVID the deal for 17 days until PVOD will continue.

Reading between the lines here...the goal of the shortened window is to keep films in people’s head. You use the advertising for the initial release in theaters then while it is still in theaters you advertise watch it in theaters and at home by this day, then following that you advertise the home release for ownership. Reducing time for films to be forgotten!

 

[Grabnar]

I really think you're in for an awakening in the coming years. Scorsese alone has been handed out checks for $250M for The Irishman on Netflix and $200M for the upcoming Killers of the Flower Moon on Apple TV+.

And Netflix did run an actual advertising campaign for The Irishman (unlike most of their content) and a subsequent Oscar campaign for the film, so they spent a TON of money on the film.

How much of that is just Scorsese's name recognition though? I think the real litmus is going to be when some of the new "prestige" directors get that kind of money for a dedicated streaming movie; someone like Villeneuve, Eggers, or even a more mainstream director like Peele or Gerwig.

 

[Nick]

How much of that is just Scorsese's name recognition though? I think the real litmus is going to be when some of the new "prestige" directors get that kind of money for a dedicated streaming movie; someone like Villeneuve, Eggers, or even a more mainstream director like Peele or Gerwig.

Scorsese has huge name recognition, but I guess that goes to my point. $200-$250M is essentially an investment into getting subscribers, right? That money comes out of a yearly budget set aside for spending on streaming content. So investing that kind of money into a well known IP is probably even more worth it for a streamer.

That's why HBO Max is doing Snyder's Justice League. It has its fans that they know will sign up for it. That's why it's not out of the realm of possibility that a movie like WW 84 could actually be made intentionally for HBO Max. That's why Disney+ has a Marvel show for every week of 2021. If Scorsese is worth that type of money, a lot of other things are.

As Apple TV+ for example has shown us, it's not about quantity, but quality. Their shows have been very top notch (and from what I've heard, pretty expensive for dramas). Maybe that's all their yearly budget called for, but if you ask me, they put it to good use.

 

[rageofthegods]

Scorsese has huge name recognition, but I guess that goes to my point. $200-$250M is essentially an investment into getting subscribers, right? That money comes out of a yearly budget set aside for spending on streaming content. So investing that kind of money into a well known IP is probably even more worth it for a streamer.

That's why HBO Max is doing Snyder's Justice League. It has its fans that they know will sign up for it. That's why it's not out of the realm of possibility that a movie like WW 84 could actually be made intentionally for HBO Max. That's why Disney+ has a Marvel show for every day of 2021. If Scorsese is worth that type of money, a lot of other things are.

As Apple TV+ for example has shown us, it's not about quantity, but quality. Their shows have been very top notch (and from what I've heard, pretty expensive for dramas). Maybe that's all their yearly budget called for, but if you ask me, they put it to good use.

There was some external criticism of Netflix over the cost of Irishman, lots of people saying that it really shouldn't have cost what it did and that there were cheaper ways of doing the de-aging (see: the Youtube Deepfakes)

I'm not entirely clear on the technology front, but I have to imagine Netflix internalized some of those criticisms because they didn't seem to fight very hard for Killers of the Flower Moon.

 

[Nick]

There was some external criticism of Netflix over the cost of Irishman, lots of people saying that it really shouldn't have cost what it did and that there were cheaper ways of doing the de-aging (see: the Youtube Deepfakes)

I'm not entirely clear on the technology front, but I have to imagine Netflix internalized some of those criticisms because they didn't seem to fight very hard for Killers of the Flower Moon.

Netflix wanted a Scorsese movie to contend for major awards. They will always have that movie now, they probably are fine with that. Apple TV+ wants their Scorsese movie now. Meanwhile, Scorsese is just sitting back getting paid big time

 

[rageofthegods]

Netflix wanted a Scorsese movie to contend for major awards. They will always have that movie now, they probably are fine with that. Apple TV+ wants their Scorsese movie now. Meanwhile, Scorsese is just sitting back getting paid big time

Fair, from that perspective it definitely served a purpose for them.

And yah, good on Marty for getting that cheddar.

 

[Nick]

And now Roku knows they can likely wait it out and ask for a higher price when they know Warners is desperate for HBO Max to succeed.

Yup, HBO Max probably is going to have to pay more now than earlier this year because Roku doesn’t need Max, Max needs them. Roku holds all the leverage knowing that HBO Max’s plan is to release all of these blockbusters direct to streaming.

 

[Legacy]

Reading between the lines here...the goal of the shortened window is to keep films in people’s head. You use the advertising for the initial release in theaters then while it is still in theaters you advertise watch it in theaters and at home by this day, then following that you advertise the home release for ownership. Reducing time for films to be forgotten!

Weird... I remember someone in this thread talking about this exact motivation...

But, with regard to Roku, how many people have Roku exclusively as their streaming device? Never mind that you can screen to a laptop and just connect it to the TV with an HDMI. But, seriously, I get that 56% of streamer use Roku, but I can stream to my TV directly, through my cable-box, through my XBOX, my Amazon Fire stick, and my laptop.

It’s possible Warner isn’t that concerned about a Roku app because there are a myriad of streaming options that already exist in most streamers’ homes without it.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Weird... I remember someone in this thread talking about this exact motivation...

But, with regard to Roku, how many people have Roku exclusively as their streaming device? Never mind that you can screen to a laptop and just connect it to the TV with an HDMI. But, seriously, I get that 56% of streamer use Roku, but I can stream to my TV directly, through my cable-box, through my XBOX, my Amazon Fire stick, and my laptop.

It’s possible Warner isn’t that concerned about a Roku app because there are a myriad of streaming options that already exist in most streamers’ homes without it.

I honestly didn't know what it was till a month ago.

 

[Nick]

Weird... I remember someone in this thread talking about this exact motivation...

But, with regard to Roku, how many people have Roku exclusively as their streaming device? Never mind that you can screen to a laptop and just connect it to the TV with an HDMI. But, seriously, I get that 56% of streamer use Roku, but I can stream to my TV directly, through my cable-box, through my XBOX, my Amazon Fire stick, and my laptop.

It’s possible Warner isn’t that concerned about a Roku app because there are a myriad of streaming options that already exist in most streamers’ homes without it.

There are many ways for some people. I have like 3-4 different ways. But that’s not everyone. Some people only have Roku or don’t know how to stream from their phone/computer to TV (or don’t have a smart tv to even do that).

Warner’s goal should be to maximize their audience, especially since they are giving this movie away to families for only $15. They increased by 36% of subscribers after launching on Amazon. They would see a similar if not larger gain by launching in Roku.

 

[Clive]

Weird... I remember someone in this thread talking about this exact motivation...

But, with regard to Roku, how many people have Roku exclusively as their streaming device? Never mind that you can screen to a laptop and just connect it to the TV with an HDMI. But, seriously, I get that 56% of streamer use Roku, but I can stream to my TV directly, through my cable-box, through my XBOX, my Amazon Fire stick, and my laptop.

It’s possible Warner isn’t that concerned about a Roku app because there are a myriad of streaming options that already exist in most streamers’ homes without it.

While this is true, HBO Max does specifically have an issue with platform availability. It isn't just Roku - they aren't available on a number of Smart TV operating systems (including Vizios). Keep in mind a bunch of Smart TVs operate on built-in Rokus, so... those are out. PS4 has a janky Max app, but the new PS5 does not. XBox seems to be the one ecosystem that consistently has the app.

There's also the continuing issue that most people do not understand the difference between vanilla HBO and HBO Max.

 

[Nick]

While this is true, HBO Max does specifically have an issue with platform availability. It isn't just Roku - they aren't available on a number of Smart TV operating systems (including Vizios). Keep in mind a bunch of Smart TVs operate on built-in Rokus, so... those are out. PS4 has a janky Max app, but the new PS5 does not. XBox seems to be the one ecosystem that consistently has the app.

There's also the continuing issue that most people do not understand the difference between vanilla HBO and HBO Max.

Yeah, imo, it’s time to shut down HBO and focus solely on HBO Max. Or maybe just merge the two. On cable and wherever they are selling HBO, just sell it as HBO Max. It’ll stop a lot of the confusion.

 

[belloq87]

New piece from THR, which paints Warner Media's decision-making in a highly unflattering light...

Warner Bros. Under Siege: “No One Is Angry at the Streamers — It’s These Guys”

WarnerMedia’s production partners are eyeing court battles over its day-and-date HBO Max plan, and top talent like Denzel Washington aren’t pleased by "woefully inadequate" overtures.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Nick]

 

[rageofthegods]

New piece from THR, which paints Warner Media's decision-making in a highly unflattering light...

Warner Bros. Under Siege: “No One Is Angry at the Streamers — It’s These Guys”

WarnerMedia’s production partners are eyeing court battles over its day-and-date HBO Max plan, and top talent like Denzel Washington aren’t pleased by "woefully inadequate" overtures.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

They made marketing material without consulting whether their contracts guaranteed exclusive theatrical release? Jeez.

 

[Nick]

New piece from THR, which paints Warner Media's decision-making in a highly unflattering light...

Warner Bros. Under Siege: “No One Is Angry at the Streamers — It’s These Guys”

WarnerMedia’s production partners are eyeing court battles over its day-and-date HBO Max plan, and top talent like Denzel Washington aren’t pleased by "woefully inadequate" overtures.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

WB is gonna get taken to court over all outstanding back end deals they’re trying to basically nullify (while at the same time paying Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot as if the film earned $1B).

They’re gonna have to pay so much in legal fees that could’ve been avoided if they went about this smarter. And tbh, they’re probably going to lose a few of the cases against them (if not all of them), meaning not only will they need to pay legal fees, but they’ll still have to pay the back ends.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

WB is gonna get taken to court over all outstanding back end deals their trying to basically nullify (while at the same time paying Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot as if the film earned $1B).

They’re gonna have to pay so much in legal fees that could’ve been avoided if they went about this smarter. And tbh, they’re probably going to lose a few of the cases against them (if not all of them), meaning not only will they need to pay legal fees, but they’ll still have to pay the back ends.

The articles notes that James Wan has a 13% back end deal on his new horror film Malignant, which cost 60M to make; if Nolan is the first person WB shouldn't piss off, Wan is absolutely second in line as their main horror producer. He could also drop out of Aquaman 2 depending how badly relations go.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

The articles notes that James Wan has a 13% back end deal on his new horror film Malignant, which cost 60M to make; if Nolan is the first person WB shouldn't piss off, Wan is absolutely second in line as their main horror producer. He could also drop out of Aquaman 2 depending how badly relations go.

Gotta wonder if Jenkins jumped ship as well. We know she got a good deal on WW84, but maybe she saw where things were going and found a couldn't miss opportunity.