Theatrical Future/PVOD Thread

[Spookies n' Stuff]

I cannot see this model working for multi-million films forever. I expect Warners will take a substantial loss on every one of those films (and use it was a write off). But this will severly impact thinking on future films - as in, greenlighting them or not. I'd not be suprised to see a swarth of future films not yet in production "delayed" or "cancelled" or have budgets severly reduced.

I don't expect this to be a permanent model, as its probably mostly to try and push HBO Max. I think going forward its more likely to see studios do a premium VOD kind of thing similar to what we saw earlier in the year rather than including them with subscriptions, as its possible they'd manage to make more money from that than they might from theaters depending how much of a cut the platforms theyre on get.

 

[Nick]

I cannot see this model working for multi-million films forever. I expect Warners will take a substantial loss on every one of those films (and use it was a write off). But this will severly impact thinking on future films - as in, greenlighting them or not. I'd not be suprised to see a swarth of future films not yet in production "delayed" or "cancelled" or have budgets severly reduced.

I mean, i'm probably going to be subscribed to HBO Max all next year now whereas before this announcement, I had no interest in being a subscriber at their pricepoint. I imagine there's many others out there like me. HBO Max subs will go through the roof in 2021.

Also, the budgeting on movies has been out of control for years. It's about time they got checked.

 

[Jamesh22]

This is extraordinarily depressing news.

Totally agree.

BUT I also don't think theaters are dead, many people sill want to see the latest blockbuster on the big screen, watching it on your TV or. even worse on a smart phone, is just not the way to go.

Even if I have to wait Im not wathing Bond, Dune, Godzilla v Kong etc on streaming.

 

[RevFreako]

Totally agree.

BUT I also don't think theaters are dead, many people sill want to see the latest blockbuster on the big screen, watching it on your TV or. even worse on a smart phone, is just not the way to go.

Even if I have to wait Im not wathing Bond, Dune, Godzilla v Kong etc on streaming.

And that's fine, but there are just as many people who would rather see it at home day and date. What's the problem with changing the indusrry ro serve both groups?

 

[Nick]

Totally agree.

BUT I also don't think theaters are dead, many people sill want to see the latest blockbuster on the big screen, watching it on your TV or. even worse on a smart phone, is just not the way to go.

Even if I have to wait Im not wathing Bond, Dune, Godzilla v Kong etc on streaming.

I agree, i'll always want to see an MCU movie or something like that in a theater. And i'll still have the chance, but I imagine Black Widow will be available on Disney+, too. I recognize that not everyone likes going to the movies and would rather watch from their bed.

 

[WAJAS]

This new streaming environment seems eerily similar to the old business model. Studios used to be vertically integrated through to the theaters. Now, studios are again going to be vertically integrated through the distribution and presentation side. The US 50+ years ago would have called this anti-consumer and forced the split, but I doubt that would happen these days.

 

[Jamesh22]

And that's fine, but there are just as many people who would rather see it at home day and date. What's the problem with changing the indusrry ro serve both groups?

Don't think I suggested there wasn't or that there is a problem with that?
EDIT I guess I did suggest that by saying its not the way to go :shrug: I meant for me personally.

The point I was trying to make is Theaters are not dead.

 

[Nick]

This new streaming environment seems eerily similar to the old business model. Studios used to be vertically integrated through to the theaters. Now, studios are again going to be vertically integrated through the distribution and presentation side. The US 50+ years ago would have called this anti-consumer and forced the split, but I doubt that would happen these days.

The consumer likes this model, so it'll be hard to argue without pissing a bunch of people off that this is anti-consumer.

 

[WAJAS]

The consumer likes this model, so it'll be hard to argue without pissing a bunch of people off that this is anti-consumer.

Well, I'm not speaking about PVOD in general. I'm just talking about how the studios own the streaming services. I think people would be completely okay with a bunch of Netflixes.

Also, an economist will tell you that the consumer doesn't tend to realize something is anti-consumer until it hits them in the face.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Also, the budgeting on movies has been out of control for years

Worse than how Disney budgets their attractions?

I’ll be honest, there are a few movies that I’ll watch “opening weekend” this way that I would be unlikely to ever watch under the traditional model (Tom and Jerry and Space Jam, especially).

Tom and Jerry reminds me of that Woody Woodpecker movie that only went theatrical in Brazil. I would have seen Space Jam in theaters though.

 

[RevFreako]

Don't think I suggested there wasn't or that there is a problem with that?
EDIT I guess I did suggest that by saying its not the way to go :shrug: I meant for me personally.

The point I was trying to make is Theaters are not dead.

No, but they'd better adapt.

This new streaming environment seems eerily similar to the old business model. Studios used to be vertically integrated through to the theaters. Now, studios are again going to be vertically integrated through the distribution and presentation side. The US 50+ years ago would have called this anti-consumer and forced the split, but I doubt that would happen these days.

It's not exactly the same. When the theater anti-trust legislation came down, the problem was that they were the only game in town. Most places only had one theater, so if say Paramount owned that theater, you probably weren't gonna see The Mummy. Not so today. WB releasing through HBOMax doesn't stop you from subscribing to D+ and so on. Apples and aardvarks.

 

[WAJAS]

It's not exactly the same. When the theater anti-trust legislation came down, the problem was that they were the only game in town. Most places only had one theater, so if say Paramount owned that theater, you probably weren't gonna see The Mummy. Not so today. WB releasing through HBOMax doesn't stop you from subscribing to D+ and so on. Apples and aardvarks.

That's a really good point. Evidently, I'm just throwing my thoughts around. Either way, I wish streaming was as simple and cheap as it used to be.

 

[Nick]

No, but they'd better adapt.

It's not exactly the same. When the theater anti-trust legislation came down, the problem was that they were the only game in town. Most places only had one theater, so if say Paramount owned that theater, you probably weren't gonna see The Mummy. Not so today. WB releasing through HBOMax doesn't stop you from subscribing to D+ and so on. Apples and aardvarks.

Yeah, I don't see how this is anywhere close to what lead to the Paramount decrees. Sure, everyone is kinda doing their own thing on their own streaming services, but as Rev said, you can subscribe to Disney+ and HBO Max. Or do the smart, money saving thing and sign up for one month for whatever movie on HBO Max, then unsubscribe and hit up Disney+ for Black Widow or something and then unsubsribe from them and go to Peacock if they start to go this route.

Consumers have very flexible choice right now the way I see it. Plus, it's not like the movies aren't going to be in theaters at all. They'll still be there.

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

Yeah, I don't see how this is anywhere close to what lead to the Paramount decrees. Sure, everyone is kinda doing their own thing on their own streaming services, but as Rev said, you can subscribe to Disney+ and HBO Max. Or do the smart thing money saving thing and sign up for one month for whatever movie on HBO Max, then unsubscribe and hit up Disney+ for Black Widow or something and then unsubsribe from them and go to Peacock if they start to go this route.

Consumers have very flexible choice right now the way I see it. Plus, it's not like the movies aren't going to be in theaters at all. They'll still be there.

All those services are going to have to compete in those months though, so people have choices but it’s not like it’s easy to flip back and forth and that is also tiring and a lot to keep track of just to watch movies, espeically if it invovles spending. Maybe people will adapt more.

 

[Grabnar]

I've been preaching for months that AMC should've turned that into an app like iTunes, Vudu or Amazon where you can choose to stream PVOD movies from there and at least they are making some money they otherwise wouldn't have (and maybe they can use their stubs membership as an incentive to use the service? Offer one free movie non-premium movie per month?).

This is what the Drafthouse did, not sure how successful it actually was. Apple and oranges though.

That said, I think when theaters come back it will 100% be places like the Drafthouse that survive. Unique experiences; food/drinks during the movie; etc. Your local 6-screen theaters are going to face an uphill battle to get people into seats.

 

[RevFreako]

All those services are going to have to compete in those months though, so people have choices but it’s not like it’s easy to flip back and forth and that is also tiring and a lot to keep track of just to watch movies, espeically if it invovles spending. Maybe people will adapt more.

People will adapt.

 

[TheGentTrent]

I'd imagine Sony would be willing to take a hefty payday if Disney was wiling to pay to have first-run distribution rights to Spider-man 3 (and maybe Homecoming and FFH packaged in) on Disney+. You have to think, Sony has Disney in a bad position. Sony could threaten to sell distribution to Netflix, Peacock, HBO Max, Apple TV, etc. Disney wants their MCU movies with THEM. They'll be forced to pay whatever Sony is asking if a situation like that were to come up.

I bet Sony would only sell Spidey 3 in a package deal with Morbius and Venom 2 since it looks like those are supposed to viewed first, timeline-wise.

 

[Viator]

I bet Sony would only sell Spidey 3 in a package deal with Morbius and Venom 2 since it looks like those are supposed to viewed first, timeline-wise.

Yeah--I would honestly not be surprised if they broker the deal with Disney, it'd be to ensure that they can keep tying in their SMCU with the MCU.

 

[Nick]

I bet Sony would only sell Spidey 3 in a package deal with Morbius and Venom 2 since it looks like those are supposed to viewed first, timeline-wise.

I could see Venom and Morbius going to Netflix. By going to Netflix, they are guaranteeing a huge audience. I don't think Disney will take Venom or Morbius, but we're in strange times. Disney would only want Spidey 3.

If Venom and Morbius were the sticking point in a deal though, Disney would I think take them even if begrudgingly.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

I'm not reading into anything long term unless several other studios try this strategy. WarnerMedia doesn't have the money to release bigger titles right now, and as the pandemic continues, they'll lose more money anyways. There's no harm in this strategy as theaters have no bargaining power for the next year (if they ever get it back), but once the pandemic ends, people will want to get out of the house. Disney might be in this boat too with their losses, but I'd be surprised if Universal, Sony, or Paramount jump onto this train given how they've handled pandemic releases (or a lack thereof).