Theatrical to VOD window shortening | 17-31 Day theatrical window for Uni

[Gavin Feng]

3 hours ago, Eric Atreides said:

 

 

coward. They deserve more Trolls World Tour situation.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

11 hours ago, RealLyre said:

I'm with the consumer on this one, I think studios should be allowed to release their movies in theaters & VOD at the same time, and they should leave the choice to the audience to decide which format is superior. 

 

instead of gate-keeping most new releases to theaters only. 

disagree.

 

I am a consumer and I decide that studios offer free movies. how about that?  business is not election.

[RealLyre]

1 hour ago, A Marvel Fanboy said:

disagree.

 

I am a consumer and I decide that studios offer free movies. how about that?  business is not election.

but the studios already let the consumers decide what movies they make,  why do you think Disney still remakes all their classics and keep producing more Marvel movies? because the consumers want that.

 

same situation applies to theaters vs VOD, if the consumer decides that it's better for them to have movies drop on VOD then the studios will go that route.

 

 

[lorddemaxus]

13 hours ago, Barnack said:

Peakcock would still have to make a deal I would imagine, a major Universal partner like that/residual calculation rules and so on would probably necessitate them to buy the streaming right internally to some reasonable market value:

https://www.dentsu.com/business/japan/contents/entertainment.html

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0169264

 

And it is an old ongoing franchise (i.e. that has streaming deal already in place), https://deadline.com/2020/04/trolls-world-tour-vod-box-office-movie-profits-universal-coronavirus-1202903913/:

Hulu streaming window deal that is valued around $25M.

 

 

Peacock is owned by Universal. Why would Universal get paid by themselves to put movies on their own service?

[Jamiem]

7 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Peacock is owned by Universal. Why would Universal get paid by themselves to put movies on their own service?

In order to pay third parties their portion of residuals (producers, actors etc.) But really for the most part it’s just shifting money around. That’s why HBO MAX still had to spend million some to get the rights to Friends, because otherwise the other parties involved would have likely sued. 

 

From what I’ve read though it seems like this is changing for both TV and Film with more Netflix style upfront payments being made and studios being able to do as they like with their shows and films without repercussions.

[titanic2187]

48 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

but the studios already let the consumers decide what movies they make,  why do you think Disney still remakes all their classics and keep producing more Marvel movies? because the consumers want that.

 

same situation applies to theaters vs VOD, if the consumer decides that it's better for them to have movies drop on VOD then the studios will go that route.

 

 

It is not about free to choice, it is a about principle, it is about tradition. 

 

It may be old-fashioned but old-fashioned doesn't mean wrong. 

 

Let them choose between VOD and cinema, i am pretty sure very soon in 10 -20 years, people will lose the right to choose between both because cinema would have been extinct by then. 

Let freedom make their choice, if that applied, then we should cut down tree freely based on convenience , killing and hunting freely,    

 

If people want to see on VOD, fine , no one stopping them, they will have just wait for few months. 

 

Do away exclusive theatrical window is like allowing cutting tree in a national park. 

[Krissykins]

1 hour ago, RealLyre said:

but the studios already let the consumers decide what movies they make,  why do you think Disney still remakes all their classics and keep producing more Marvel movies? because the consumers want that.

 

same situation applies to theaters vs VOD, if the consumer decides that it's better for them to have movies drop on VOD then the studios will go that route.

 

 

You’re forgetting about the impact of piracy when they put films on VOD. Those criminals can’t seem to be stopped unfortunately. 
 

Hopefully they find a way to issue heavy fines to each and every pirate, then maybe things could change. 

[antovolk]

1 hour ago, Krissykins said:

You’re forgetting about the impact of piracy when they put films on VOD. Those criminals can’t seem to be stopped unfortunately. 
 

Hopefully they find a way to issue heavy fines to each and every pirate, then maybe things could change. 

This is where Screening Room came in with their tech, the special boxes and tracking sensors etc. At the time, major chains weren't convinced even with them getting a comparable cut of the revenues...maybe they'll be convinced now, with the company back from the dead.

[Barnack]

7 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

Peacock is owned by Universal. Why would Universal get paid by themselves to put movies on their own service?

 

Outside contractual reason with people that have invested in the movie and have right to streaming participation for individual part of the company that are run by different people to balance sheet and calculate there yearly performance and bonus.

 

Even for a very small entreprise, for example if you buy a used car in a garage and back home your alternator break and call them, they came get it with the toeing and change it, the mechanic part of the garage will charge it to the selling division of the same garage (or is accounting would not make much sense).

 

And this example Universal selling it for free on a streaming service and thus declaring 0 revenue on the movie side sound like would screw up the people that financed that movie like Dentsu and the more silent pure financial side if any is the most obvious case, but at the end of the year the producer of that movie, the executive of the movie production branch would also be screwed.

[Krissykins]

5 hours ago, antovolk said:

This is where Screening Room came in with their tech, the special boxes and tracking sensors etc. At the time, major chains weren't convinced even with them getting a comparable cut of the revenues...maybe they'll be convinced now, with the company back from the dead.

Doesn’t that involve a set top box? Can’t see studios waiting for that, or many people buying it. 

[antovolk]

2 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

Doesn’t that involve a set top box? Can’t see studios waiting for that, or many people buying it. 

It did in their initial idea. But that was before likes of Apple TV, Fire TV etc really really took off. I can see SR Labs, if it comes down to it, trying to find a way to adapt software-level stuff they had planned for these platforms, and whether it's possible to replicate what they might have had with the box.

 

But studios were very keen on it at the time, even Spielberg and Scorsese were on board https://deadline.com/2016/05/peter-jackson-screening-room-lord-of-the-rings-the-hobbit-disruptor-director-cannes-interview-1201751882/ 

[filmlover]

Odd how Lionsgate just rescheduled their entire movie slate except for Run (the Sarah Paulson psycho mother thriller). Makes me think that one's being sold off to streaming too. Most likely Netflix since they already have another Paulson project (the Nurse Ratched series from Ryan Murphy) that's supposed to land later this year.

[RealLyre]

On 4/4/2020 at 10:54 AM, lorddemaxus said:

A smaller film but this is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Going straight to MUBI:

 

 

this came out today, I'll get to it after I finish Hollywood

[Eric Atreides]

 

[grim22]

4 minutes ago, Eric Atreides said:

 

My guess is WB contacted theaters, have lined up Tenet and Wonder Woman and have reaffirmed commitment to theatrical whereas Universal decided to say "Screw theaters".

[RealLyre]

24 minutes ago, grim22 said:

My guess is WB contacted theaters, have lined up Tenet and Wonder Woman and have reaffirmed commitment to theatrical whereas Universal decided to say "Screw theaters".

then those theaters should only boycott the films that go to VOD (if they want to prove a point) not do that to everything that Universal releases. otherwise they just sound like bullies.

 

 

 

 

[filmlover]

37 minutes ago, grim22 said:

My guess is WB contacted theaters, have lined up Tenet and Wonder Woman and have reaffirmed commitment to theatrical whereas Universal decided to say "Screw theaters".

Also they likely had a longer discussion about it and came to a solid deal for whatever Scoob theoretically might've made in theaters, unlike Universal, who made their decision and announced it within like...two hours? One hour? Less?

[Eric Atreides]

Sorry for not doing this the past couple days (never go to school kids)

 

Apple

1. Sonic the Hedgehog

2. The Assistant

3. Bad Boys for Life

4. Jumanji: The Next Level

5. The Gentlemen

6. Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

7. Trolls World Tour

8. Black and Blue

9. Spies in Disguise

10. Birds of Prey

 

Amazon

1. Trolls World Tour

2. Sonic the Hedgehog

3. Bloodshot

4. Bad Boys for Life

5. The Gentlemen

6. The Greatest Showman

7. Knives Out

8. Little Women

9. Like a Boss

10. Jumanji: The Next Level

[charlie Jatinder]

Let's be fair. If the producers wanna secure their investments and think they can get the audience by OTT or VOD, they should be free to do so. Exhibitors have no right whatsoever.

 

I also wonder, if producers can leverage this situation for better sharing terms when all this is over. In ideal world, Studios deserve way more than 50% of Net revenue.

[lorddemaxus]

1 hour ago, charlie Jatinder said:

In ideal world, Studios deserve way more than 50% of Net revenue.

In that ideal world, cinema prices would increase and cinemas would probably suffer a large decrease in demand. Probably a decrease in service quality too and chains like AMC probably won't be able to afford services like A-list either. Also would mean that their workers are treated even worse and many would lose their jobs or get paid less.

 

Either way, the studios end up making the more revenue from ancillaries while the only other way cinemas can make revenue is through concession sales.

 

I have no clue why you want this when it's only going to affect the consumer negatively. Why are you even feeling bad for movie studios lol? Who tf cares about what the millionaire/billionaire producers and studios deserve? Giving studios a larger share isn't going to make cinemas better for consumers.

Edited May 2, 2020 by lorddemaxus