NEW YEAR weekend

[Valonqar]

8 minutes ago, joaqs said:

It's like calling Saltburn a flop when it didn't recoup in theaters but was an absolute smash on Prime Video and even killed all of Netflix's big Christmas releases.

 

Good. Saltburn deserves to kill derivative trash like Rebel Moon. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Valonqar

[AniNate]

7 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

It is simple, don’t complicate things with context here and there. It is just business. If a product can’t make enough money back to cover its cost, it is  a flop. And this case, no matter how I live KoTFM and that movie is awesome, it is mathematically losing money in theater. Yes, it would have way bigger post-theatrical life just like every other Scorsese movie, yes it is gonna be award juggernaut but those are different matters. There isn’t a “explicit” cash flow going into the project. Yes, overall it may be a win for Apple’s strategy but factually the movie is losing money.

 

You say it's "just business" but at the same time you're acknowledging that it might be a win for Apple's strategy. The business doesn't always neatly fit into the "win/loss" sports season analogy the forum likes to think it is, and sometimes throwing loaded words like "flop" out just serve to stir the pot, not to reflect how the movie is actually perceived by its investors.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by AniNate

[keysersoze123]

Flower Moon and Napoleon are streaming movies getting theatrical releases. They are well made for theatrical consumption considering crazy long run times and dreary subject(at least for Flower Moon). I hope Netflix picks up from this Apple Model in giving their movies reasonable theatrical run to build some credibility for the movies they have on their platform. Or stop making big budgeted streaming movies. 

[Napoleon]

We DC fans should be allowed to call Aquaman 2 a hit because it’s doing twice as much as people thought it would do. If profitability is what matters than we need to have a conversation about BVS being considered a failure. You can’t have it both ways. 

[joaqs]

Speaking of streaming titles, with how well Boys in the Boat is doing, I can only imagine how Midnight Sky would have done in theaters if released in this market. 

[BadOlCatSylvester]

4 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

 

 

 

A subtitled foreign film reaching $50M domestically is honestly insane to me, when most of them are lucky to make a tenth of that in the end. This bodes very well for Godzilla x Kong next year provided that lives up to the first duel.

[ThomasNicole]

13 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

It is simple, don’t complicate things with context here and there. It is just business.

Shocking news: business also demands context all the time. 

 

That’s why we keep seeing Netflix producing sequels to movies that are objectively failures in gaining money for them, or Apple spending more money campaigning Killers despite not gaining any actual money back. 
 

It may be hard to believe for people that thinks like most executives, but good executives not always spend money just to get money back in short term because they know credibility is also a relevant thing. 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

52 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Did they? 
 

I’ve saw comparisons with many foreign movies, lots of nods to Fellini and Terry Gilliam but literally not a single serious critic compared it with EEAAO

It's a Yorgos Lanthimos movie, anyone calling Poor Things a crowdpleaser has a very creative definition of the word. Film festival crowdpleaser maybe but that's a very different thing from mainstream audiences.

 

Like EEAAO, Poor Things is an awards contender with some less genteel elements and people wonder how voters will react. However, Poor Things could have easily been slapped with an NC-17 if the ratings board had been in a bad mood, not to mention the premise in conjunction with all the sex scenes potentially being a turnoff. It has a lower ceiling in theaters compared to EEAAO.

 

 

24 minutes ago, YM! said:

I would like you to tell me how is Anyone But You pretentious.

It's based on Shakespeare? But that doesn't make a movie pretentious especially when it's a comedy.

Edited December 31, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[Eric Prime]

34 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

People also like to use streaming to argue if a movie should or shouldn’t be seen as flops. Come on, if streaming or home media sales coming into picture, then no movie will ever go flop. It is just a matter of time when a movie can turn profit. We can save all the meltdowns we have all these years over flops. I can even declare the marvels isn’t a flop since sooner or later it will return profit, maybe 20 years later. 

Yeah. It probably will return profit 20 years later. Movies are and always have relied on the ancillary market, whether it be to make money on DVD, merchandise, etc.. It may not be as massive as it was in the 2000s, but it has always been something that has helped movies become successful and something studio executives take into account whenever they greenlight a project. Why should we ignore that stuff just so we can act like a movie is an epic flop of massive proportions? Doesn't seem all that productive.

 

And it's not like that stuff always "saves" movies. Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet were huge hits on home video, and probably made a profit over the years thanks to that, but they are still regarded as flops within Disney offices and with the general public.

 

12 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

It is simple, don’t complicate things with context here and there. It is just business. If a product can’t make enough money back to cover its cost, it is  a flop. And this case, no matter how I live KoTFM and that movie is awesome, it is mathematically losing money in theater. Yes, it would have way bigger post-theatrical life just like every other Scorsese movie, yes it is gonna be award juggernaut but those are different matters. There isn’t a “explicit” cash flow going into the project. Yes, overall it may be a win for Apple’s strategy but factually the movie is losing money.

If it's just business, then why are you ignoring a fundamental part of the movie business just to use hyperbole and make movies look like bigger flops than they are? We really don't need this energy on the forums. Trust me.

[titanic2187]

20 minutes ago, joaqs said:

I dunno about Killers and Paramount but Napoleon made money for Sony considering it only had a distribution deal. And expecting streaming films to recoup in theaters is kinda dumb. They'll drive subscribers to Apple TV and that's their endgame qhen the green light was given.

But it is even dumber to expect a single move to drive big subscriptions business. Movie drive subscription at streaming as a portfolio, as a library. 
 

5 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

You say it's "just business" but at the same time you're acknowledging that it might be a win for Apple's strategy. The business doesn't always neatly fit into the "win/loss" sports season analogy the forum likes to think it is, and sometimes throwing loaded words like "flop" out just serve to stir the pot, not to reflect how the movie is actually perceived by its investors.

 

 

I don’t see how a movie being a flop but at the same time critically acclaimed and a win Apple as a strategy is contradictory. Matters by matters, all of them can happens simultaneously but I cannot accept the argument all these plus point can suddenly alter the fact that KoTFM didn’t make enough money to cover its cost theatrically. If that is case, what should we call  a BO success from Apple if Wolfs suddenly surprise with a 1bn gross at the box office? 

[ringedmortality]

11 minutes ago, joaqs said:

Speaking of streaming titles, with how well Boys in the Boat is doing, I can only imagine how Midnight Sky would have done in theaters if released in this market. 

 

Midnight Sky was shot with the intent of screening on IMAX screens too.

[vale9001]

13 minutes ago, joaqs said:

Speaking of streaming titles, with how well Boys in the Boat is doing, I can only imagine how Midnight Sky would have done in theaters if released in this market. 

Both Sandra Bullock Netflix movies would have been big hits.

[ThomasNicole]

7 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

I cannot accept the argument all these plus point can suddenly alter the fact that KoTFM didn’t make enough money to cover its cost theatrically. 

I mean, we all know KOTFM didn’t break even theatrically. You’re not really saying anything groundbreaking here lol, we’ve been knowing this would likely happen since they announce it costs 200M and would release on theaters

 

We’re just saying it doesn’t matter because it has been said dozens of times even by Apple executives that what they want with these partnerships with auteurs is credibility, and like i said, this may be shocking but usually what gives you credibility aren’t the same things that gives you short term money.
 

Anyone good at their work knows that, the fact that Hollywood is in trouble is precisely because some bad executives seems to forget that making ridiculous investments in “easy money makers” without create credibility would eventually lead to these huge bombs because people simply don’t trust them anymore.

Edited December 31, 2023 by ThomasNicole

[JustWatching]

13 minutes ago, BadOlCatSylvester said:

A subtitled foreign film reaching $50M domestically is honestly insane to me, when most of them are lucky to make a tenth of that in the end. This bodes very well for Godzilla x Kong next year provided that lives up to the first duel.

Makes me wonder how much money Toho left on the table by not having a dubbed version for the U.S. market.

[joaqs]

14 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

Both Sandra Bullock Netflix movies would have been big hits.

Bird Box would be huge but the drama would struggle because of terrible reviews. That was a perfect streaming title.

[titanic2187]

7 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Shocking news: business also demands context all the time. 

 

That’s why we keep seeing Netflix producing sequels to movies that are objectively failures in gaining money for them, or Apple spending more money campaigning Killers despite not gaining any actual money back. 
 

It may be hard to believe for people that thinks like most executives, but good executives not always spend money just to get money back in short term because they know credibility is also a relevant thing. 

Then why did Paramount drop out from KoTFM deal? All the benefit listed and implicit value gain from KOTFM should allow paramount to go ahead with Scorsese but they still dropped out.  This is because they are in business. They know they can’t afford if this going flop but Apple with its mega cash balances managed to sustain the burn. It is ok to lose money for KoTFM under Apple because they gain in other aspect but that applied to paramount too! Apple is gaining on other ground doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t cover their cost on making KoTFM. 

[wboxoffice]

Ferrari is doing domestically kinda similar to the Whitney biopic from last year, although the latter had to deal with the historic winter storm that hurt that whole Christmas weekend.  Still, it's a reminder that even when it comes to topics like Whitney & Ferrari which both have huge potentials, it often depends on marketing which was almost non-existent and too "targeted".  There was no hype that was built for either.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by wboxoffice

[joaqs]

20 minutes ago, wboxoffice said:

Ferrari is doing domestically kinda similar to the Whitney biopic from last year, although the latter had to deal with the historic winter storm that hurt that whole Christmas weekend.  Still, it's a reminder that even when it comes to topics like Whitney & Ferrari which both have huge potentials, it often depends on marketing which was almost non-existent and too "targeted".  There was no hype that was built for either.

 

 

The good thing is that Neon "only" paid 15 mil for distribution rights and the movie got a theatrical run, otherwise STX would drop it on streaming.

[ThomasNicole]

20 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

Then why did Paramount drop out from KoTFM deal? All the benefit listed and implicit value gain from KOTFM should allow paramount to go ahead with Scorsese but they still dropped out.  This is because they are in business. They know they can’t afford if this going flop but Apple with its mega cash balances managed to sustain the burn. It is ok to lose money for KoTFM under Apple because they gain in other aspect but that applied to paramount too! Apple is gaining on other ground doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t cover their cost on making KoTFM. 

And who the hell is saying Apple paying for it change the fact that it didn’t break even? You’re chasing ghosts here.

 

Again, we said it doesn’t matter for Apple, you know, the one who paid for it. Involving Paramount dropping it in the conversation is truly irrelevant, they drop out because they prioritize the box office they knew the movie wouldn’t get, while Apple accept it because they want credibility and doesn’t care about box office profits.
 

You’re basically agreeing at this point that the box office doesn’t matter for the company who paid for it so why you keep saying you won’t accept narratives that change the fact that it didn’t make a profit when no one is arguing about this? Saying it doesn’t matter is not the same of saying it’s a huge success.

[ThomasNicole]

Well i’m going to my husband party so i’m not sure if i’m going to be here again this year haha.
 

So, happy new year for everyone, wish a good celebration for all.