Jump to content

kayumanggi

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON | 10.20.2023 | Paramount | current gross: $67,826,648

Recommended Posts



36 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Does anyone know just how successful (or not) The Irishman ended up being for Netflix?

Netflix viewership is wonky and confusing, but about 17.1M people watched it in the first 5 days. In terms of 2019 as a whole, it was #5 for the year, only behind Murder Mystery, Stranger Things 3, 6 Underground, and Incredibles 2. Sounds pretty successful, since I don't think Roma ever really charted that much, though that's obviously a tougher sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



13 hours ago, filmlover said:

Does anyone know just how successful (or not) The Irishman ended up being for Netflix?

Will need to define successful here, it is I imagine a bit more complex than raw numbers, according to this if we look what look like only Netflix productions

 

https://time.com/5697802/most-popular-shows-movies-netflix/

 

The Witcher (2019): 76 million views
Murder Mystery (2019): 73 million views
Triple Frontier (2019): 63 million views
The Perfect Date (2019): 48 million views
Tall Girl (2019): 41 million views
The Highwaymen (2019): 40 million views
Secret Obsession (2019): 40 million views
Our Planet (2019): 33 million views
Always Be My Maybe (2019): 32 million
Unbelievable (2019): 32 million views
Otherhood (2019): 29 million views
The Irishman (2019): 26.4 million views
El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019): 25.7 million views
When They See Us (2019): 25 million views
Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened (2019): 20 million views

 

 

Hard to call success something with that big of a budget and ambitious doing 60% of something like The Highwaymen ($40M budget, 57% on RT way way less talked about, that could indicate that most that started The Irishman didn't reach the 70% of the runtime mark, but still better than Mariage Story it seem), but how precise are the numbers/projection of what the lifetime views could be based on early numbers projections, how many people got or kept an account in part just to watch that movie could be bigger than some Adam Sandler that is way more watched by people that watch it just because it is free on their already paid for account. What it mean in visibility (to the public but also to the talents and so on)

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites



53 minutes ago, Eric Lightfoot said:

Netflix viewership is wonky and confusing, but about 17.1M people watched it in the first 5 days. In terms of 2019 as a whole, it was #5 for the year, only behind Murder Mystery, Stranger Things 3, 6 Underground, and Incredibles 2. Sounds pretty successful, since I don't think Roma ever really charted that much, though that's obviously a tougher sell.

That would be strange to not have any of the usual streaming champion in here, in 2018 friends, the office, grey anatomy, ncis,  was pretty much most of netflix bandwith:

https://www.adweek.com/tv-video/the-office-friends-and-greys-anatomy-were-netflixs-most-streamed-shows-last-year/

 

A I guess viewership and minutes/bandwith will be really difference, has one person will have watched thousand of minutes of friends/office.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



50 minutes ago, Barnack said:

That would be strange to not have any of the usual streaming champion in here, in 2018 friends, the office, grey anatomy, ncis,  was pretty much most of netflix bandwith:

https://www.adweek.com/tv-video/the-office-friends-and-greys-anatomy-were-netflixs-most-streamed-shows-last-year/

 

A I guess viewership and minutes/bandwith will be really difference, has one person will have watched thousand of minutes of friends/office.

 

I dunno man. It's what Variety says

 

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/netflix-popular-movies-2019-murder-mystery-irishman-1203453297/

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Aren't all those netflix numbers based on anyone who watched 2 minutes of a certain movie/tv show? 

 

No one knows how much of a "success" it was or how much it helped the brand or how many new subscribers it brought. Netflix subscription base is still growing because the streaming market is still growing and its competition has still a lot of ground to cover.

 

The market will eventually reach a point where most of the new costumers will have to be won from some other competitor. At the moment I guess even for Netflix that has all the data is difficult to pinpoint how much of the new costumers are there because of the Witcher/Scorsese/Sandler etc and how much are people just now joining the streaming game because its the new way of watching TV. So everything that was watched by X millions is automatically a success because the subscription base keeps growing, that won't last forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 hours ago, Joel M said:

Aren't all those netflix numbers based on anyone who watched 2 minutes of a certain movie/tv show? 

 

Usually they say 70% of the runtimes (including the generic), there was some strange different for a tv series (The Witcher maybe?) but for movies it seem to have been that rules since at least Sandra Bullock the Bird Box.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



18 hours ago, TMP said:

DiCaprio going to streaming is so weird though. He's the only living actor with legitimate box office pull, only Denzel comes close

He's definitely the only one who can claim to be a global superstar anymore at this point. Denzel's movies do well here but tend to make little overseas (the fact he's somehow never received a single BAFTA nomination throughout his storied career is perhaps all the proof there is that his appeal has remained exclusive to the US). Smith and Cruise have had some duds in recent years but when they're in projects that are too big to fail (Suicide Squad, Aladdin, Mission: Impossible) they show they still got it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, Barnack said:

Usually they say 70% of the runtimes (including the generic), there was some strange different for a tv series (The Witcher maybe?) but for movies it seem to have been that rules since at least Sandra Bullock the Bird Box.

70% was the older metric which I think The Irishman fell under.  They're now doing 2 minutes for films and series (ridiculous) under which The Witcher has been reported

 

Regardless $200m for a drama period piece that should be $100m at most - when including Leo's payment - is INSANE.

 

One can't blame studios for not supporting films that could bankrupt them - and Paramount is already teetering. 

 

 

 

Edited by TalismanRing
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



i was already thinking that thanks to the rona studios are gonna play it extra safe and any risky sounding project in pre-production was gonna go on the chopping block like this and the george miller movie. maybe apple can pick this up so they'll have something interesting in their library.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

i was already thinking that thanks to the rona studios are gonna play it extra safe and any risky sounding project in pre-production was gonna go on the chopping block like this and the george miller movie. maybe apple can pick this up so they'll have something interesting in their library.

Yeah, if Mad Max is already casting then there's no way he'll have time to shoot the Elba film before cameras roll for Furiosa 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

i was already thinking that thanks to the rona studios are gonna play it extra safe and any risky sounding project in pre-production was gonna go on the chopping block like this and the george miller movie. maybe apple can pick this up so they'll have something interesting in their library.

Isn't the George Miller movie meant to have a low budget? Doubt it's a risky film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Wouldn't be surprised if this movie cost so much just because of a long production schedule and on-location shooting. Wolf of Wall Street would have likely cost way more too if it relied more heavily on practical effects (that movie had a lot of CGI for the type of film it was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, lorddemaxus said:

Wouldn't be surprised if this movie cost so much just because of a long production schedule and on-location shooting. Wolf of Wall Street would have likely cost way more too if it relied more heavily on practical effects (that movie had a lot of CGI for the type of film it was).

I'm firmly in the camp give Marty all the money he wants but I still can't wrap my head around how this is supposed to cost 200m. Revenant was a long production with harsh conditions and the entire crew chasing snow from Canada to Argentina and didn't cost close to that. Gangs of NY build a city from scratch and even adjusted the budget isn't close to that. I don't get what all this money is needed for.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.