google-site-verification=EzRt-ZmNlc4J5RNLXiuJpAEGjNviG678nNB1w49cgZg Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About reddevil19

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Inside the house

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In all seriousness... DC is WB's biggest brand - the one with the most potential. But the WB back catalogue is tremendous. So would DC be sold off separately from the studio? Doubtful. And I don't see how Disney or Comcast would get the green light from regulators to buy WB. If AT&T sells, it's probably the whole studio, and it will be to a tech company or media conglomerate not currently holding a studio. Which isn't a bad thing in itself. Nor is a pivot to streaming. But, again, it had to be done smartly and not overnight. Completely new management is needed, with a proper strategy.
  2. Undoubtedly things are moving in that direction, but the reason this is such a poor move now is because it wasn't well thought-out and the logistics for the move just aren't there yet. Small steps in that direction must be made, but this is akin to jumping into a pool from a 30 foot board, without knowing how to swim, and discovering the pool is empty halfway down the fall... In order for streaming to properly cover the costs of massive movies (forget 200 million budgets, even the 100-150 range) in a volume people are accustomed to and in order to deliver on the spectacle and to accommodate the constant desire for something new (needed to maintain and grow subs), the service has to have proper worldwide reach and a big consumer base. Even Disney+ isn't there just yet, which is why Mulan had to have the extra cost on it. I personally believe the D+ Premier Access model can work as a day-and-date with cinema model for big blockbusters. BUT the service has to at least have a 200 million+ subscriber base and the access cost for a 48-72 hrs rental had to be under 10 dollars, followed by a 16 week window of guaranteed VOD, before it hits the service free of additional charges. The high subscriber base will mean there are plenty of costumers even if half of them skip it and a lot of people end up watching in groups. The low access price means more people that might only have watched it as a group are willing to pay and also subscribers that might have been undecided would be willing to give it a go. The short rental window would also mean people that truly love the movie might end up doing a repeat viewing, thus adding to the revenue. After all, the uber blockbusters get to that point in cinema thanks to repeat business. Hell, you can even include a model that allows for 30-50% off any additional views past the first one from the same account. This will encourage repeat business or, at the very least, help WOM for those sharing logins, etc. I think $8.99 - $9.99 is a good Premier Access price for this kind of model, as it doesn't break a psychological barrier. I could see a big DC or big MCU movie being able to hit 50 million purchases with that (plus a few repeats), while still selling 25-50% of their normal tickets at the box office. But, again, they would need a big enough base that, should only 25-40% of it pay the extra, it's still successful. With the revenue from streaming being all theirs, even a true 50-50% split with theaters from OD till close of a (reduced) theatrical window would be acceptable to cinemas. Combine that with a more consolidated cinema market, where there's fewer locations, focused on either the huge blockbusters or smaller, niche ones for the art house business, I think cinemas would also survive, though in a slightly different, smaller role. But, as I said, the infrastructure for this isn't in place yet which is why WB overshot. On top of the logistics for the studios themselves, as Nolan and others have pointed out, this is a huge move that affects back end deals for EVERYONE, not just the top level directors and stars. Without working out the details for such a huge change, what you get is the huge backlash we're seeing right now. It's not about being resistent to change just for the hell of it - it's about making those changes at the right time and in the right manner, to allow for success. WB seems to be doing the exact opposite... RIGHT NOW, I think Amazon is in the best position to capitalise on this. They DO have the infrastructure for massive worldwide roll-out of a $9.99 first run huge budget blockbuster. If they can work out the back office details, I could see them handing 200 million to Nolan for a high concept sci fi or something. They could work out a deal with IMAX to satisfy his desire for the big screen. Hell, if the LEGENDARY-WB thing devolves into a huge legal entanglement that severs all ties, I could see Amazon swooping in for Dune part 2... From this massive post, I think it's easy to tell there's lots one can speculate on when it comes to what happens next. But the point stands - WB fucked up by doing this now, and in this manner.
  3. No, they won't. Not for 20-30 USD. When will you people stop making this argument? For PVOD to work outside the US, you need a whole cultural shift from consumers that not even COVID can accomplish. People will pay 10 dollars for a streaming service with a decent catalogue. In Central and Eastern Europe (hell, even most of Western), Asia, South America, they will NOT pay double or more of that to just watch one movie when they can just torrent it.
  4. Netflix and now Disney+ have worldwide distribution. And the very vast majority of their catalogue is not composed of brand new, first run movies. Max does not have a presence outside the US and this IS about first run movies. It will open the floodgates to piracy outside the US and if you can't see that, you're just short-sighted.
  5. Nolan's gonna end up directing the MCU X-Men or something at this rate. Jesus, this is a masterclass in how to burn bridges.
  6. Agreed. The second FB was before the big backlash anyway - it was just a mess of a script. If the script is good, with Depp gone (not because of any personal issue, but because he was just soooo wrong in the role - he was listless compared to the charming menace of Farrell), there is potential for the rest of the series.
  7. Haha. Wow. Been a while since I posted, but this is just... Wow. I've always been a fan of WB for their fairly open approach to riskier projects, and allowing more control to their auteurs (sometimes to their detriment, thus resulting in huge over-compensating a la the DCEU). But Jesus Christ are the people running the place incompetent. Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, this was sooooo poorly handled.
  8. Netflix and even Disney+ are pretty much standard apps on smart tvs, as well as game consoles - Apple TV+ doesn't have the same wide availability. I don't have any up-to-date data, and I am sure there would have been more shift in 2019, before the pandemic again changed habits, but I do believe there was a report 2-3 years ago that showed over 2/3 of Netflix viewing is on TVs. Even with a substantial drop from that high, Apple TV + would be nowhere near that.
  9. Again, Apple's the only one I can see going for this. And considering how most people watching Apple TV+ are doing it on their phones... Ouch, what a shame that would be. Like, seriously, it could have been done for a third of the money when people watching on a 7 inch screen, but with Craig and the Bond name slapped on it, the same numbers would be bandied about.
  10. Amount who would watch... Sure. But how many of those would actually be new? For a 600 million one-off purchase? The answer is simply not anywhere near enough.
  11. Spending more than half a billion dollars on one movie would be sheer idiocy if that doesn't come with more attached regarding the overall franchise rights. Just how many new subscriptions would Netflix get from something like Bond? Even in an optimistic scenario? Personally, I don't think it's a good deal for them. And if one of the newer services goes all in on it, again, it has to be someone with a big enough reach to potentially tap into a well of new subscribers. Apple is the only one that has their product out worldwide but the Apple TV+ subscriber numbers are way too low in comparison. This is the kind of product that would help, I'm sure, but they would then need to sustain it (I'm an Android boy, but I have loads of friends using Apple and most of them did the free trial to watch a show or two but never subscribed) - which is why this being a one-off may not be a good deal even for their deep pockets. 3 movie deal worth a billion, tie in the release dates for each movie to a major Apple launch, so that you get even more incentive (what with the new product = one year of free service thing), bla bla... I firmly believe huge, 200 million productions CAN go to streaming, but only under the right circumstances, in order for it to be a sustainable model. A one-off 500M+ deal sounds like a bad deal to me, but in this current climate...fuck knows.
  12. It really is amazing. Like, obvious make-up is always impressive in a visually striking way (i.e. DeVito's Penguin, or Joker, etc), but stuff like this, where it's so transformative while still looking organic is truly impressive.
  13. Think Venom (for some reason people liked the first one and I just feel like this will be a better movie, with a similar opening but slightly better legs), Minions and Top Gun. Also think F9 has a shot at that. But this is, again, all on the assumption that there is a return to normal or at least a positive outlook for the second half of the year, allowing for a buoyant market all around. And, to tie in with that, that major chains either survive or get snapped up fast enough for a swift transition and 90% of the normal market is open by late March (which would actually help F9 as well, being among the first big releases to enjoy a proper wide release) As is... fuck knows. Everything is up in the air. But under somewhat normal circumstances, after a year of... all this shit... I would feel overly-optimistic about those three.
  14. I'm thinking 2, possibly 3 will do that. If nothing else, there will still be upheaval with 2021 releases pushing back to 2022, and that will leave a vacuum. Of course, that is all predicated on a normal distribution model resuming by Q2 2021 at the latest...
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.