Weekend Thread | Actuals: Smile 22.6, DWD 6.85, TWK 6.8, Avatar 5, Bros 4.8

[Eric Duncan]

11 minutes ago, DAJK said:

That's what's so odd to be about putting such big event films straight to streaming with no theatrical run at all. HP2 could have made 100M WW (if not more), and THEN Disney could have put it on Disney + for their catalogue. Same with things like Glass Onion (or any other streaming movie that has a built-in fanbase; I'm thinking also about Disenchanted). They are leaving so much money on the table, are they not? Or is there something I'm missing?

These services need big premiere movies too to get people to sign up too (I don't care if "everybody forgets they exist". Tell them that, not me). And that exclusivity, not getting it anywhere else, sounds very attractive. Simple as that. Put them at a loss and assume these movies will either gain subscribers or at least retain them. And in Hocus Pocus 2's case at least, they can still make money off merchandise and even a potential home video/cable release down the road, which Disney has done before with some of their Disney+ content.

 

Plus these services don't have to worry about backend deals with a streaming release, since there's no box office. Not paying for box office milestones or any other kinds of residuals is a very nice bonus.

[filmlover]

41 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

Budgets:

 

Smile $17m

Bros $22m

Bros could end up losing money (assuming it makes a total in the teens domestic and likely zilch overseas) even with a rather cheap budget. Hopefully it makes up for that when it's out on streaming in a couple of weeks.

 

Smile will be profitable in no time. Go Sosie Bacon (Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick's daughter in real life)!

[Cmasterclay]

[Blankments]

PSA: only a few days left to vote at the super Boffies in the preliminary round!!!

 

 

[grim22]

50 minutes ago, Eric Smiley said:

These services need big premiere movies too to get people to sign up too (I don't care if "everybody forgets they exist". Tell them that, not me). And that exclusivity, not getting it anywhere else, sounds very attractive. Simple as that. Put them at a loss and assume these movies will either gain subscribers or at least retain them. And in Hocus Pocus 2's case at least, they can still make money off merchandise and even a potential home video/cable release down the road, which Disney has done before with some of their Disney+ content.

 

Plus these services don't have to worry about backend deals with a streaming release, since there's no box office. Not paying for box office milestones or any other kinds of residuals is a very nice bonus.

There is something to be said about the movies being forgotten for sure. For example, take EEAAO and something like Prey which was well reviewed and looked upon as the resurrection of the Predator franchise. One of those kept building with word of mouth and the other had maybe a weekend's worth of discourse. Prey should have been the type of movie which opens small but keeps on going thanks to an empty market plus great word of mouth instead of just being another movie straight to streaming.

[Spidey Freak]

1 hour ago, JustLurking said:

I'm a bit confused, how did Bros get to that budget as a studio comedy with no star power at all? That seems odd.

 

Fellow Manhattan-based romcoms Raising Helen and Confessions of a Shopaholic cost 50M and 44M pre-2004 and 2009 respectively.

 

Freakin Mary-Kate and Ashley's New York Minute cost 30M in 2004. These films aren't exactly made for just a dime and a wad of bubblegum. It's actually surprising that Eichner managed to keep the budget this low.

[Blankments]

 

[BadOlCatSylvester]

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

There is something to be said about the movies being forgotten for sure. For example, take EEAAO and something like Prey which was well reviewed and looked upon as the resurrection of the Predator franchise. One of those kept building with word of mouth and the other had maybe a weekend's worth of discourse. Prey should have been the type of movie which opens small but keeps on going thanks to an empty market plus great word of mouth instead of just being another movie straight to streaming.

Blame Predator 2018 tanking as badly as it did for Prey being nothing more than Hulu fodder. A theatrical release wouldn't have helped it much considering what happened to some other franchise relaunch attempts in recent years.

[AJG]

25 minutes ago, Blankments said:

 

 

"Indie".

 

 

[Goldenhour36]

33 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

"Indie".

 

 

 

I mean it is as it was produced and released by an independent company. 

[JustLurking]

1 hour ago, Spidey Freak said:

 

Fellow Manhattan-based romcoms Raising Helen and Confessions of a Shopaholic cost 50M and 44M pre-2004 and 2009 respectively.

 

Freakin Mary-Kate and Ashley's New York Minute cost 30M in 2004. These films aren't exactly made for just a dime and a wad of bubblegum. It's actually surprising that Eichner managed to keep the budget this low.

TIL I guess. Always expected budget for this would be lower given the (lack of) star power involved but I guess not.

[ThomasNicole]

3 hours ago, DAJK said:

That's what's so odd to be about putting such big event films straight to streaming with no theatrical run at all. HP2 could have made 100M WW (if not more), and THEN Disney could have put it on Disney + for their catalogue. Same with things like Glass Onion (or any other streaming movie that has a built-in fanbase; I'm thinking also about Disenchanted). They are leaving so much money on the table, are they not? Or is there something I'm missing?

At this point, some cases it's theaters fault.

 

We know for months now that Netflix was looking for a wide theatrical release for Glass Onion with 30-45 days of exclusivity. 

 

From what i've read, it's the exhibitors that are being extremelly difficult on the terms and making everything hard to close a deal. 

 

The whole thing just looks like tantrum against Netflix at this point, since the exhibitors accept the ridiculous day-on-date for Halloween Ends and will screen the movie normally because "Universal was very supportive during the pandemic".

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, ThomasNicole said:

At this point, some cases it's theaters fault.

 

We know for months now that Netflix was looking for a wide theatrical release for Glass Onion with 30-45 days of exclusivity. 

 

From what i've read, it's the exhibitors that are being extremelly difficult on the terms and making everything hard to close a deal. 

 

The whole thing just looks like tantrum against Netflix at this point, since the exhibitors accept the ridiculous day-on-date for Halloween Ends and will screen the movie normally because "Universal was very supportive during the pandemic".

 

I assume Cinemark cut Netflix a theatrical deal (b/c they've been the Netflix go-to) and they'll have Glass Onion from mid-Nov til the Dec 23 release?

 

That could be very good for that chain...a known sequel to a popular movie would be an even better draw than some of the celebrity Netflix movie draws they've had (and done well with)...

[Cruel Summer]

Im sorry but who exactly was looking forward to HP2?? 0 mentions on my tl (20-30 y.o people)

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

So sad for Bros. I really thought it had potential. Depressing. Hopefully Ticket To Paradise succeeds but it is depressing a genuinely historic film in terms of representation has flopped to such a degree

[Jake Gittes]

Lack of interest in Bros makes sense to me after reading the logline, it sounds like another movie that exists in an industry(-adjacent) bubble a la Late Night. "Museum director falls in love with a lawyer after being hired to write a gay romantic comedy" this has never happened to anybody ever, gay or straight

[Eric Duncan]

42 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

Im sorry but who exactly was looking forward to HP2?? 0 mentions on my tl (20-30 y.o people)

Me. I was interested in it.

[filmlover]

Bros had an awful marketing campaign that failed to sell the movie sell. Somebody posted a tweet a while back in the movie's thread that its promotional campaign was an example of a studio selling a movie based on its significance instead of its quality (which a lot more people care about at the end of the day), as if they never believed the movie could sell itself despite the strong reviews, and that sounds like an accurate miscalculation. Romcoms also rely on star power much more than other genres, and the closest to a notable name here at all was Eichner (who is already polarizing to many due to his shouty Billy on the Street persona).

 

That said, not looking forward to the inevitable "this is the movie Twitter claims they want and then don't show up when Hollywood actually makes it" think pieces that will surface after the weekend over its low numbers.

Edited September 30, 2022 by filmlover

[Eric Duncan]

I will say that while I am very interested in Bros and think it looks very funny, I do think that the whole "groundbreaking" thing Eichner's touting in the press for this movie rings pretty hollow IMO. The movie's pushing itself as "the first major gay romcom ever", but that just reeks of "Disney's first gay character" syndrome to this bi boy.

 

Maybe if we haven't gotten any major gay comedies since The Birdcage, I could understand the "groundbreaking" hype. But Love, Simon came out only a few years ago. Blockers featured a girl coming to terms with her sexuality as a major plot point. Netflix and Hulu have stuff like The Prom and Single All the Way and Happiest Season and Fire Island. And yeah I know that the kid playing Simon was straight and those other movies are "streaming movies", and that what Bros did was legit unique and special in terms of casting out actors and having a theatrical release...but I don't think this kind of stuff really matters to even the demographic it's representing.

 

This just looks and feels no different to stuff that's already on streaming at first glance and what seems unique and special in terms of representation isn't even all that enticing to the demo being represented. It's like they are moving the goalposts to make this feel more "one of a kind" instead of simply letting the movie speak for itself. A pity it's hurting a good-looking movie like Bros nevertheless.

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

I assume Cinemark cut Netflix a theatrical deal (b/c they've been the Netflix go-to) and they'll have Glass Onion from mid-Nov til the Dec 23 release?

 

That could be very good for that chain...a known sequel to a popular movie would be an even better draw than some of the celebrity Netflix movie draws they've had (and done well with)...

 

As a person who A] doesn't have Netflix and won't be getting it any time soon and B] lives in an area dominated by Cinemark theaters, I sure am hoping that they stick to the Cinemark/Netflix agreement!