Will BLOCKBUSTERS cease to exist without theaters?

[Maggie]

I can't imagine streamers investing hundreds of million in a supposed blockbuster movie. The return of investment doesn't seem to be worth it. Nothing beats makin 1B in theaters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Maggie]

I can't believe DUNE will be a tv movie...😥

[Maggie]

Mulan was a complete flop on streaming. WW84 came and went. No impact

[Eric Duncan]

@Maggie instead of just making a new post seconds after posting a new one, just edit your post. It makes things annoying to read.

[Maggie]

Let's take Netflix for example. Usually, a sign that a movie was successful is that it has a sequel. How many of these high budget Netflix movies have sequels? They give sequels to those low budget Noah Centino movies instead lol

Edited February 22, 2021 by Maggie

[Maggie]

3 minutes ago, Eric Gardner said:

@Maggie instead of just making a new post seconds after posting a new one, just edit your post. It makes things annoying to read.

ooo i just saw this. ok

[SLAM!]

The blockbuster wouldn't disappear, I don't think. If anything, it would change. Maybe the word 'blockbuster' would be phased out, but there will always be smash hits no matter how films are distributed. Films will always have a chance to break out with an enormous audience, whether it's original or adapted. "Hey buddy, have you heard of this film?" "No I haven't, what's it about?" "It's about this, this, and this! You gotta see it!" Films can still have a huge impact on millions of people even if it's never shown in theaters--that's a blockbuster in my book.

[DAJK]

I don't think so. Netflix will spend 150M+ to make the Irishman, ditto to Disney with Wandavision. No way will streaming services stop making blockbuster movies.

[Fullbuster]

I mean, theaters don't seem to be disappearing for now...Disney at the very least seems willing to keep them alive.

[Avatree]

20 hours ago, Maggie said:

Mulan was a complete flop on streaming. WW84 came and went. No impact

Those movies were paid for VOD.

 

Netflix has been quite happy spending $100m+ on production budgets and they continue to do so. They clearly believe they get a good return on their investment.

 

I don't think cinemas are going anywhere though. Netflix & co. were massively mainstream and "in every household" BEFORE covid and box office sales in 2019 were just as strong as they were 10 years ago before streaming. Covid is the only reason cinemas have struggled, I really don't believe the competition from streamers has had any real impact.

[Maggie]

1 minute ago, Avatree said:

Those movies were paid for VOD.

 

 

Mulan was a complete flop. WW84 benefited from being the sequel to a huge blockbuster in cinemas.

 

If these 100M+ are so successful, why no sequels? Let's see if The Gray Man with Evans and Gosling gets a sequel. That's supposed to have a big budget

[Avatree]

13 minutes ago, Maggie said:

Mulan was a complete flop. WW84 benefited from being the sequel to a huge blockbuster in cinemas.

 

If these 100M+ are so successful, why no sequels? Let's see if The Gray Man with Evans and Gosling gets a sequel. That's supposed to have a big budget

Netflix hasn't been interested in sequels in like...  ever? That's just part of their business model.

 

Aside from their #1 show, they cancel every single TV show after 2 seasons, max 3, even if it's popular. Their business model doesn't benefit from continuing successful IPs, it instead relies upon making new, new, new, and more new content.

 

 

Not sure what your point is with mulan/ww84. Like I saiid they were not straight-to-streaming, they were premium VOD, there is a huge difference. The overwhelming majority of audience clearly are not willing to pay $30 for a movie at home.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Avatree

[Eric Duncan]

23 minutes ago, Maggie said:

Mulan was a complete flop. WW84 benefited from being the sequel to a huge blockbuster in cinemas.

 

If these 100M+ are so successful, why no sequels? Let's see if The Gray Man with Evans and Gosling gets a sequel. That's supposed to have a big budget

Stuff like Extraction, Old Guard, Bright, etc. have sequels greenlit for development. They've taken a while due to pay issues, but I doubt Netflix will drop these things right away

[Barnack]

I am not sure if the notion of blockbuster (if you mean movies that get watched a lot or that cost a fortune and achieve to get watched a lot) will disappear without theater if movies continue to exist.

 

I am not sure movies will continue to exist (outside niche affair) without theater, the point of a fully contained story told to be watched in one sitting could loose it's mainstream appeal without theater, why a movie instead a mini series to tell this story and so on.

 

It will take a good amount of time (for everyone that was born when theatrical existed to pass away) but yes obviously feature length film could stop to be popular completely, making 1 off giant budget for a single 1h20 to 2h30 hours only project a thing of the past (with obviously the movie franchise entry, or potential first one of a wannabe franchise continuing to a thing) much longer.

 

Would a Titanic make sense to take a chance for a streamer with 0 chance of making new customer, but just not losing them in the next 8 months and the calculation become, how many customer do not take a pause or cancel for how many months investing 250 millions in a movie that can completely flop make it worth it, when something like Tiger King at that price point is worth an incredible amount for a platform (or a proven The Office).....

 

 

The concept will have momentum and will not die right away, 100% certains, especially not with Disney IPs and Pixar studio existing, but will it survive just the first 100 years after movie theater become a niche affair ?, not so sure, many medium art form-format stopped to be mainstream level of popular over the years.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Barnack

[Barnack]

6 hours ago, Eric Gardner said:

Stuff like Extraction, Old Guard, Bright, etc. have sequels greenlit for development. They've taken a while due to pay issues, but I doubt Netflix will drop these things right away

Those 3 example were small - mid budget movies too and I would be curious how "profitable" if the concept make sense (or did matter at that point, they were not chasing profit yet that much netflix, stock value and ability to get money was not evaluated much on that versus potential future one) they would have made with a $200m price tag.

[xiazhi]

Mulan and WW84 are just bad. They would flop at BO under normal circumstances anyways.

I think BW, FF9 or no time to die would do much better but studios want to save the good ones for post-pandemic BO.

 

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, xiazhi said:

Mulan and WW84 are just bad. They would flop at BO under normal circumstances anyways.

 

Not seen them, so obviously has no opinion on the bad part, but the brand is so strong that depending on what you mean by flop I am not sure I agree.

 

Suicide Squad was a nice success, BvS OW got so big that it got out of flop territory (again depending of your definition) just by the strength of it.

 

I think WW84 would have went by with the strength of the goodwill from the first one opening (plus of the genre and DC branding), same for Mulan.

 

We would find people saying the same of Aladdin or Beauty online if they were released under Mulan scenario (Mulan RT score being better than those) and they were billion dollar movies. 

[xiazhi]

59 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Not seen them, so obviously has no opinion on the bad part, but the brand is so strong that depending on what you mean by flop I am not sure I agree.

 

Suicide Squad was a nice success, BvS OW got so big that it got out of flop territory (again depending of your definition) just by the strength of it.

 

I think WW84 would have went by with the strength of the goodwill from the first one opening (plus of the genre and DC branding), same for Mulan.

 

We would find people saying the same of Aladdin or Beauty online if they were released under Mulan scenario (Mulan RT score being better than those) and they were billion dollar movies. 

It's not about my opinions. These two's audience ratings are super low across global platforms: CS, IMDB, Douban, Maoyan. That's very telling.

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, xiazhi said:

It's not about my opinions. These two's audience ratings are super low across global platforms: CS, IMDB, Douban, Maoyan. That's very telling.

I am not arguing with you that they would have not have had good legs for their genre, just that they would have possibly opened so big that they would have had an hard time to flop.

 

No theatrical made the verified audience score disappear, not saying those 2 could have been the target for some reason of bad scoring (i.e. China tension and what not) and bot didn't perform well in market they had theatrical making it without question they would not have legged well.

 

But imagine WW doing a "terrible" 105M OW with a terrible 2.3 multiplier and a terrible 52% domestic performance, that still a 464 millions box office (heavily domestic), a bit like Mulan the brand is so giantly strong and the machine to sell and distribute the movie that it is hard to see them flop (depending what you mean).

Edited February 23, 2021 by Barnack

[lab276]

I've watched two Netflix documentary series about serial killers, "The Ripper" and "The Confession Killer". They're made up of four and five 45 min episodes respectively, and while they are interesting and I did finish them, what I thought while watching them, is that they would be much stronger if they were feature length. Because they really do start to drag after the third hour. And tbh, I feel that way about a lot of miniseries, even ones I enjoy like The Bridge.

 

I just find a movie that nails it in two hours to be a more satisfying viewing experience than a series that outstays its welcome. It's a challenge for sure, and I think that's why a lot of things are miniseries and shows these days. But it's to their detriment.