Theatrical Future/PVOD Thread

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

And I get most of that. I don't like it, because I prefer to see a movie in theaters, but I GET it.

Now here's the thing for me though. Unless it's a big event film, i'm still most likely not in the demographic that would spend any money on these other types of films. Like I said, i'm single, so unless I were to get together with friends (which right now I can't do), i'm not spending $20-$25 on a film to not even own it. I haven't spent money on any of these quarantine releases so far, either. To me, it's cheaper to go to the theater and watch a movie, and I don't even do A-List or a service like it. I spend $8.50 max when I go to the movies and I go the the CityWalk Cinemark.

I know movie theaters are probably being expedited downhill because of this pandemic, but hey, i'm allowed to not like it. I still don't think studios can afford to budget films for $200M and spend $100M-$150M on marketing the film if they are doing a VOD release. I could very well be wrong though and if so, it'll just be an excuse to finally get that home theater system i've been wanting

Dude I’ve always wanted a home theatre and this pandemic has made me realize if I ever own an apartment or home soon and can invest in this and some nice projector? I’m doing it.

 

[JungleSkip]

I'll believe that when I see it. Hollywood is very much like WDI and doesn't know how to control spending or spend wisely.

I think you need to take a closer look at most studio's slate.

Outside of WB, most studios have focused on smaller fare. The only big, expensive Universal releases are Fast and Jurassic, and they're not doing those every year. Illumination and DreamWorks keep their production budgets low and always make a profit, and most of Uni's big winners are Blumhouse horror movies with sub 10million dollar budgets.

 

[Legacy]

And I get most of that. I don't like it, because I prefer to see a movie in theaters, but I GET it.

Now here's the thing for me though. Unless it's a big event film, i'm still most likely not in the demographic that would spend any money on these other types of films. Like I said, i'm single, so unless I were to get together with friends (which right now I can't do), i'm not spending $20-$25 on a film to not even own it. I haven't spent money on any of these quarantine releases so far, either. To me, it's cheaper to go to the theater and watch a movie, and I don't even do A-List or a service like it. I spend $8.50 max when I go to the movies and I go the the CityWalk Cinemark.

I know movie theaters are probably being expedited downhill because of this pandemic, but hey, i'm allowed to not like it. I still don't think studios can afford to budget films for $200M and spend $100M-$150M on marketing the film if they are doing a VOD release. I could very well be wrong though and if so, it'll just be an excuse to finally get that home theater system i've been wanting

And for my wife and I, a movie night starts at $20 and typically reaches $35-$40 if we get snacks. All for what is, for us, a less comfortable experience than staying at home. We frequented Alamo Drafthouse in Texas (“frequented” being a movie every 3-4 months) because we liked the food and their strict “no disruptions” policy. If their food wasn’t as good or their policy wasn’t as strict (Cinebistro), we would have gone a lot less.

I use to see 1 or 2 movies a week 10-15 years ago, so I get it. But I went because I like movies and that was, really, the only way to see them. Now, I’m still watching just as many films without leaving my house.

EDIT -

Dude I’ve always wanted a home theatre and this pandemic has made me realize if I ever own an apartment or home soon and can invest in this and some nice projector? I’m doing it.

Take your stimulus check and buy a SONOS Playbar and SUB. Later, when you can, get a couple of PLAY:1s. It’ll change your life.

 

[Nick]

I think you need to take a closer look at most studio's slate.

Outside of WB, most studios have focused on smaller fare. The only big, expensive Universal releases are Fast and Jurassic, and they're not doing those every year. Illumination and DreamWorks keep their production budgets low and always make a profit, and most of Uni's big winners are Blumhouse horror movies with sub 10million dollar budgets.

Call of the Wild (which was a FOX decision prior to Disney) got approved for a $125M budget. That movie was never going to make that much money. And what about Sony with their Spider-Man movies? I can guarantee you Venom 2 and Morbius aren't cheap and it looks like they are going all in on Uncharted as well (although the budget is still unknown) and they also have Jumanji as a franchise now.

But since you specifically mentioned Universal... Dolitte and Cats as recent examples. $175M for Dolittle and $100M on Cats. A musical shouldn't cost more than $50M tops.

And you can't just say "besides WB..." (and obviously Disney) when it's one of the four major studios left. And then there's Netflix. I know it may seem like they have an endless money pit, but eventually they'll need to turn a profit and making a movie like The Irishman that cost $170M is bonkers. Scorcese has come back to Netflix begging for more money now too because apparently his newest drama needs to be $200M

 

[Clive]

Putting our preferences for the theatrical experience aside, I'd still insist the theaters are in the losing corner here. They're bluffing, like they do every time, but in this instance, they have substantially less leverage. That has not changed.

 

[Scott W.]

And I’m positing that most people either don’t care about the experience, or don’t actually enjoy it. They go for the movie themselves.

The first billion dollar (first run) movie was Titanic, a highly marketed, cultural phenom that still holds records. That was only 22 years ago. Billion dollar films are a fairly recent phenomenon that rely heavily on international markets. Even Endgame, the highest grossing movie ever, only made $850 million domestically (30% of its total gross). So to say VOD will never make a billion is overselling the theater experience while underselling the accessibility of VOD. Anything is capable of making a billion its culturally big enough.

Because the actual elephant in the room with this situation isn’t getting discussed. Ticket SALES have been trending down for the last twenty years, despite the increasing box office. That’s why AMC and NATO is so scared about VOD. That’s why theaters are willing to sacrifice so much to Disney (100% take, 60% of screens) so they can get people to actually go to the movies. That’s why ticket prices keep ticking up. So, when Universal says the quiet part out loud (“Maybe we don’t need theaters”), they’re actually the ones with the leverage and statistical advantage. And AMC knows it.

If movies studios are bands, movie theaters are the dive bars that let bands perform for “exposure” while taking a cut of the money. Eventually though, the bands start to realize they can make more money without the dive bar. That’s what we’re seeing here. Universal (ie- Comcast) has the infrastructure and capability to put their films directly into people’s homes with no middleman at all. Why wouldn’t they explore it? Because of the “theater experience?” Numbers indicate that doesn’t actually matter.

I just don't see a movie on VOD ever doing the same kind of business as it would in a theatre for 2 reasons:

1. 1 ticket for multiple people
2. Piracy is easy

Your first point is spot on, people only go to the theatre for the movies themselves and they have no other good option for seeing the movie. If it's on VOD, it will be pirated within hours and now people have 2 options to watch the movie. One costs 20 bucks (or whatever the cost) and one that is free. Both will offer the exact same experience.

Unless some new hardware is released with content protection that can't be breached, releasing on VOD is a lot of risk to take. I can see them trialling it with movies they feel less confident about.

 

[Nick]

And for my wife and I, a movie night starts at $20 and typically reaches $35-$40 if we get snacks. All for what is, for us, a less comfortable experience than staying at home. We frequented Alamo Drafthouse in Texas (“frequented” being a movie every 3-4 months) because we liked the food and their strict “no disruptions” policy. If their food wasn’t as good or their policy wasn’t as strict (Cinebistro), we would have gone a lot less.

I use to see 1 or 2 movies a week 10-15 years ago, so I get it. But I went because I like movies and that was, really, the only way to see them. Now, I’m still watching just as many films without leaving my house.

That's good for you and your wife and i'm sure it works out better financially for most people.

I'm just saying, if Studios ever want to *truly* break from the theaters, they need to think about a pricing structure that works for everyone? Maybe a similar thing like A-List, but from the studios? I know for a fact that people around my age (Millenials and Gen Z as well) can't justify $20+ for a rental right now.

 

[JungleSkip]

Call of the Wild (which was a FOX decision prior to Disney) got approved for a $125M budget. That movie was never going to make that much money. And what about Sony with their Spider-Man movies? I can guarantee you Cenom 2 and Morbius aren't cheap and it looks like they are going all in on Uncharted as well (although the budget is still unknown) and they also have Jumanji as a franchise now.

But since you specifically mentioned Universal... Dolitte and Cats as recent examples. $175M for Dolittle and $100M on Cats. A musical shouldn't cost more than $50M tops.

And you can't just say "besides WB..." (and obviously Disney) when it's one of the four major studios left. And then there's Netflix. I know it may seem like they have an endless money pit, but eventually they'll need to turn a profit and making a movie like The Irishman that cost $170M is bonkers. Scorcese has come back to Netflix begging for more money now too because apparently his newest drama needs to be $200M

Everything you list is a few movies on a mare larger slate. Disney is the only studio with more than 2 of these movies ever year usually. I think you overestimate how important "200 million dollar budgeted" movies are for a studio's overall health.

I just don't see a movie on VOD ever doing the same kind of business as it would in a theatre for 2 reasons:

1. 1 ticket for multiple people
2. Piracy is easy

Your first point is spot on, people only go to the theatre for the movies themselves and they have no other good option for seeing the movie. If it's on VOD, it will be pirated within hours and now people have 2 options to watch the movie. One costs 20 bucks (or whatever the cost) and one that is free. Both will offer the exact same experience.

Unless some new hardware is released with content protection that can't be breached, releasing on VOD is a lot of risk to take. I can see them trialling it with movies they feel less confident about.

I think your piracy concerns are a bit overblown. Most people will not look for pirated movies, and those that do were never going to spend money on a film in the theaters to begin with.

 

[Nick]

On the piracy front of things, it is way up during quarantine. Up by as much as 60% in some countries and 40% in the US.

Movie and TV Piracy Sees an 'Unprecedented' Spike During Quarantine

Torrenting and illegal streaming sites have seen a huge increase in traffic as people look for something to do while they're stuck inside.

www.vice.com

 

[Clive]

Everything you list is a few movies on a mare larger slate. Disney is the only studio with more than 2 of these movies ever year usually. I think you overestimate how important "200 million dollar budgeted" movies are for a studio's overall health.

$200 million dollar budget movies are actually a substantial risk for any studio. It's an all-or-nothing scenario - if it hits, great (though profitability would've been better if you'd shaved it down to $100m or even $150m), but if not, it's a significant write-off. Those sort of gambles going belly up have killed smaller studios throughout Hollywood's histories. Disney has weathered quite a few - remember John Carter, Lone Ranger, and Mars Needs Moms? Their modern strategy of releasing almost exclusively blockbuster films is seen as a liability by most, but it's also the studio with the trove of IP to justify those spends. There's a reason they pivoted away from C to D list adaptations to regurgitating their animated library.

 

[Scott W.]

Everything you list is a few movies on a mare larger slate. Disney is the only studio with more than 2 of these movies ever year usually. I think you overestimate how important "200 million dollar budgeted" movies are for a studio's overall health.



I think your piracy concerns are a bit overblown. Most people will not look for pirated movies, and those that do were never going to spend money on a film in the theaters to begin with.

You can't compare a theatre only release to theatre and VOD for pirating.

People who pirate movies would still go to a theatre as it's the only way they can see the movie without being a crappy cam recording. Having a 4k pirated movie changes the whole situation.

 

[Nick]

$200 million dollar budget movies are actually a substantial risk for any studio. It's an all-or-nothing scenario - if it hits, great (though profitability would've been better if you'd shaved it down to $100m or even $150m), but if not, it's a significant write-off. Those sort of gambles going belly up have killed smaller studios throughout Hollywood's histories. Disney has weathered quite a few - remember John Carter, Lone Ranger, and Mars Needs Moms? Their modern strategy of releasing almost exclusively blockbuster films is seen as a liability by most, but it's also the studio with the trove of IP to justify those spends. There's a reason they pivoted away from C to D list adaptations to regurgitating their animated library.

They pivoted away from C to D list adaptations? Then what was the $125M they threw at Artemis Fowl only for it to end up on Disney+?

 

[JungleSkip]

You can't compare a theatre only release to theatre and VOD for pirating.

People who pirate movies would still go to a theatre as it's the only way they can see the movie without being a crappy cam recording. Having a 4k pirated movie changes the whole situation.

agreed to disagree. I don’t think it’s statistically significant

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Then what was the $125M they threw at Artemis Fowl only for it to end up on Disney+?

Hubris

 

[Nick]

The amount i've pirated in the past is a long list and goes back to the Napster days. I still go to the theater for pretty much every big movie release.

People who pirate movies would still go to a theatre as it's the only way they can see the movie without being a crappy cam recording. Having a 4k pirated movie changes the whole situation.

Yup, it goes from the cam footage to basically being handed the Blu-Ray.

 

[Legacy]

Call of the Wild (which was a FOX decision prior to Disney) got approved for a $125M budget. That movie was never going to make that much money. And what about Sony with their Spider-Man movies? I can guarantee you Cenom 2 and Morbius aren't cheap and it looks like they are going all in on Uncharted as well (although the budget is still unknown) and they also have Jumanji as a franchise now.

But since you specifically mentioned Universal... Dolitte and Cats as recent examples. $175M for Dolittle and $100M on Cats. A musical shouldn't cost more than $50M tops.

And you can't just say "besides WB..." (and obviously Disney) when it's one of the four major studios left. And then there's Netflix. I know it may seem like they have an endless money pit, but eventually they'll need to turn a profit and making a movie like The Irishman that cost $170M is bonkers. Scorcese has come back to Netflix begging for more money now too because apparently his newest drama needs to be $200M

You listed a lot of poor artistic decisions that were obviously poor from the get go. But, with regard to Venom(s) and Mobius, the first Venom was a $100 million budget. Venom 2 *may* be incrementally more than that, but Morbius is estimated to be $80 million tops (and maybe as low as $50 million.

I just don't see a movie on VOD ever doing the same kind of business as it would in a theatre for 2 reasons:

1. 1 ticket for multiple people
2. Piracy is easy

Your first point is spot on, people only go to the theatre for the movies themselves and they have no other good option for seeing the movie. If it's on VOD, it will be pirated within hours and now people have 2 options to watch the movie. One costs 20 bucks (or whatever the cost) and one that is free. Both will offer the exact same experience.

Unless some new hardware is released with content protection that can't be breached, releasing on VOD is a lot of risk to take. I can see them trialling it with movies they feel less confident about.

VOD rentals are typically only for 48 hours, so unless someone is watching a film multiple times over a two day period (generally rare, I think) multiple viewings aren’t a real concern. And I’m in the camp that pirates are going to pirate. The impact already is what it is. And while there’s been an increase in piracy, how much of that is the result of pirates having more time at home to pirate?

 

[JungleSkip]

The amount i've pirated in the past is a long list and goes back to the Napster days. I still go to the theater for pretty much every big movie release.

So you would pirate the next Avengers movie if you could get it in 4K the day of the release?

 

[Clive]

They pivoted away from C to D list adaptations? Then what was the $125M they threw at Artemis Fowl only for it to end up on Disney+?

You've named one film that they're clearly regretting?

 

[Nick]

So you would pirate the next Avengers movie if you could get it in 4K the day of the release?

No, I would go to the theater and see it the way it's meant to be seen. It's been years since i've pirated anything.

 

[Scott W.]

You listed a lot of poor artistic decisions that were obviously poor from the get go. But, with regard to Venom(s) and Mobius, the first Venom was a $100 million budget. Venom 2 *may* be incrementally more than that, but Morbius is estimated to be $80 million tops (and maybe as low as $50 million.

VOD rentals are typically only for 48 hours, so unless someone is watching a film multiple times over a two day period (generally rare, I think) multiple viewings aren’t a real concern. And I’m in the camp that pirates are going to pirate. The impact already is what it is. And while there’s been an increase in piracy, how much of that is the result of pirates having more time at hope to pirate?

It's not about multiple viewings, it's about multiple people viewing. For every viewing with more than 2 people is a loss of ticket sales.

Pirates are going to pirate, sure. But currently if you want to watch a new movie that isn't out of focus, has people's heads, poorly cropped and terrible audio, then you need to go to a theatre.