This is one time where Matpat might sort of be right, in this idea of big blockbusters being treated as even bigger events and played at stadiums and sfuff.
Jesus Christ that sounds awful lmao
This is one time where Matpat might sort of be right, in this idea of big blockbusters being treated as even bigger events and played at stadiums and sfuff.
If Netflix can get 150 million people to pay $10 per month don't you think the biggest IPs in the world can get people to drop $20-30 on their next big marvel movie?At a certain point you have to sell so many VODs it's unrealistic.
Let's use the $20 mark. Do you honestly believe 50 million people are buying that? That's what it would take to make a billion.
If Netflix can get 150 million people to pay $10 per month don't you think the biggest IPs in the world can get people to drop $20-30 on their next big marvel movie?
Hell you could probably sell $40-50 extra editions to the hardcore fans.
'Also, New Mutants will remain in the phantom zone for its crimes against Krypton."
Lately I've been coming around to the idea that the path to bringing the X-Men into the MCU should be:
X-Men (Disney + series , no Wolverine)
Wolverine (Theatrical Movie)
Wolverine and the X-Men (Theatrical Movie)
Universal claimed over $100M in revenue over the first few weeks - less than the first movie, but it resulted in more profit due not needing to cut in theaters.
And none of these Netflix offers have the reach of Star Wars, Marvel or other big movies.Netflix is getting people to pay for a very vast library featuring a ton of stuff
you are comparing that to a single title
Why would you pay more than $25 to go see a movie in a cinema when you can buy it 3 months later?Studios would also have to push home video release windows way back. Why would you play anymore than $25 for a VOD screening, when you can just wait another 3 months & buy the movie for the same price & watch it as many times as you want forever? We'd go back to waiting upwards of a year for the home video release to get people to need to watch it. The point of the theatre is to see it displayed in it's purest form where you can't see it anywhere else. If you're just watching it on your own TV; why not wait 3 more months & just buy it over a single rental viewing? I mean, I guess it plays on the "need it now" mentality. But personally, if my only options are VOD or buying a couple months later; I'd rather just wait & actually own it. Unless VOD price is significantly lower than what a blu-ray would run me.
Why would you need to do less marketing for a movie in VOD than theaters? Common sense dictates the opposite. You need to completely re-educate the US population about WHERE to see a new release movie - and that's going to be reflected in the marketing. Plus without theaters, you have fewer people exposed to new trailers - so film marketers have to find entirely new strategies for onboarding audiences.How much do people think it costs to market and deliver this content? They aren't included in a film's budget, they're included in the studios budget. Blockbuster figures are heavily weighed by ancillary costs that would barely exist with VOD.
That $1 or $2 billion blockbuster would only need a fraction of that revenue if delivered through VOD to make that back. That's why studios are saying they need to evaluate on a case by case basis because it isn't a simple "movie cost X, we earned Y, we make more in the cinemas", it doesn't work that way.
We are undoubtedly entering a time where there will be a hybrid release model and I'm sure the major blockbusters will hit cinemas first but the pandemic will change consumer habits for a number of years by which point they may be changed for good.
Are you actually arguing people get their new movie marketing from cinemas instead of YouTube, instagram or Facebook? What is this 2005?Plus without theaters, you have fewer people exposed to new trailers - so film marketers have to find entirely new strategies for onboarding audiences.
Because you have the entire content delivery network. You're not paying for cardboard cut outs or posters at every cinema and you're not spamming every media outlet to get people to go to the cinema to discover it.Why would you need to do less marketing for a movie in VOD than theaters? Common sense dictates the opposite. You need to completely re-educate the US population about WHERE to see a new release movie - and that's going to be reflected in the marketing. Plus without theaters, you have fewer people exposed to new trailers - so film marketers have to find entirely new strategies for onboarding audiences.
Why would you pay more than $25 to go see a movie in a cinema when you can buy it 3 months later?
I'd gladly pay $50 to see a new release at home because it means I don't need a babysitter and I don't have to deal with crowds or overpriced food. There are very few films that people would pay for the "theater experience" if given the choice on day 1.
The problem isn't getting video to people - it's getting them to watch it. Theaters are a captive audience - they're going to watch whatever trailer is attached. But if that's not a factor - the same audience would all need to voluntarily decide to watch that same trailer. Seemingly a small hurdle - but it makes a world of a difference towards exposing people to media they aren't already familiar with. Factor in network effects of people discussing that trailer after seeing it for themselves - and you see the value of a guaranteed audience.Are you actually arguing people get their new movie marketing from cinemas instead of YouTube, instagram or Facebook? What is this 2005?
I don't know many people who attend a movie on their own either. Where I am the usual adult ticket is $17, $50 is merely two adults + a minimal amount of concessions.I don't know any theater that charges $25 for a ticket(to be perfectly honest, I don't know any theater ticket over $18 & that's for IMAX 3D) but I was just going on the speculation of prices & using a smaller end in this thread about upwards of $50; christ. But again, $50 to watch it once when the home video released would be half of that in a short turnaround time?
So instead you're paying those same outlets to get people to go to iTunes or Amazon Video and buy it there. All while communicating that this is a new major release, and that it's worth a far higher price than any other at-home video rental you've ever paid for.Because you have the entire content delivery network. You're not paying for cardboard cut outs or posters at every cinema and you're not spamming every media outlet to get people to go to the cinema to discover it.
How much does Netflix spend on marketing their series compared to say a blockbuster movie? You certainly advertise a service but you greatly reduce the need to advertise content once you have people using your platform.
I don't know many people who attend a movie on their own either. Where I am the usual adult ticket is $17, $50 is merely two adults + a minimal amount of concessions.
My point is why do people pay to go to the cinema in the first place? Often the convenience and price of doing it at home is preferred and many movies offer little value in the "theater experience" unless it's a major blockbuster.
Official Endgame trailer has like 300 million views on YouTube alone that's 10 times more than you get with any theatre trailer campaign. People talk about the new marvel or Star Wars trailers all the time even if they only see it on YouTube. Your argument makes no sense considering there are atleast another 50 million views on various trailer reaction videos or discussions.The problem isn't getting video to people - it's getting them to watch it. Theaters are a captive audience - they're going to watch whatever trailer is attached. But if that's not a factor - the same audience would all need to voluntarily decide to watch that same trailer. Seemingly a small hurdle - but it makes a world of a difference towards exposing people to media they aren't already familiar with. Factor in network effects of people discussing that trailer after seeing it for themselves - and you see the value of a guaranteed audience.
Where has it been established that iTunes or Amazon Video are the content delivery platforms of choice. Disney has their own delivery network, keeping those people aware is a non-issue.So instead you're paying those same outlets to get people to go to iTunes or Amazon Video and buy it there. All while communicating that this is a new major release, and that it's worth a far higher price than any other at-home video rental you've ever paid for.
Sure, you save on printing some posters & cardboard standees. But then you also have fewer people exposed to those films, because those posters and standees don't exist.
Movie marketing is entirely a game of keeping people aware of a product until it is available. Theaters are a barrage of this marketing - constant superliminal reminders that an upcoming film exists. Losing that advertising space means companies need to overspend as they rework an entire American cultural institution.
You're grossly overstating the quality of your average theater and the need for that experience for the vast majority of movies. Your average cinema would play 150 movies per year, maybe 1 or 2 of them would be "must have experiences" in a theater.I'd say they pay to watch a movie on a 40-50 foot screen with the highest quality audio system. Not sure many folks have one of those sitting around their house.
Yes, because that's literally the biggest film in cinema history. It was able to get that immediate attention by making 22 beloved movies first.Official Endgame trailer has like 300 million views on YouTube alone that's 10 times more than you get with any theatre trailer campaign. People talk about the new marvel or Star Wars trailers all the time even if they only see it on YouTube. Your argument makes no sense considering there are atleast another 50 million views on various trailer reaction videos or discussions.
It's weird to think that Trolls World Tour might be one of the most influential films in the history of US Cinema from a business standpoint.
So instead of spending money on cinema ads you now spend your money on social media ads and most likely still reach a way bigger audience than in cinemas while also reaching a more targeted audience.Yes, because that's literally the biggest film in cinema history. It was able to get that immediate attention by making 22 beloved movies first.
Consider just about any non-super-blockbuster. If you're not a known name, convincing people to actually watch the trailer is not an automatic feat.
Disney's not putting these movies on Disney+, though - unless they're interested in setting several billion dollars in fire. So in addition to communicating WHERE these movies are, they also have to establish where they AREN'T - and why you shouldn't just wait until it hits Disney+. Hell, Onward hit D+ just a few weeks after VOD - why wouldn't Mulan be the same?Where has it been established that iTunes or Amazon Video are the content delivery platforms of choice. Disney has their own delivery network, keeping those people aware is a non-issue.
Almost every smart TV platform on the planet has targeted advertising these days, I'm not saying marketing would cease to exist but currently the marketing to cinema attendance model isn't tightly coupled like it could be for VOD.
Cool. So you're now paying for ad space that younger consumers are hardwired to skip automatically, if not block from the OS level. Go ask Birds of Prey how well a big social media spend goes for you.So instead of spending money on cinema ads you now spend your money on social media ads and most likely still reach a way bigger audience than in cinemas while also reaching a more targeted audience.
It's a far easier marketing task than having marketing delivery networks and strategies in every country, negotiating with theater chains in every country, dealing with ratings bodies in every country etc.Disney's not putting these movies on Disney+, though - unless they're interested in setting several billion dollars in fire. So in addition to communicating WHERE these movies are, they also have to establish where they AREN'T - and why you shouldn't just wait until it hits Disney+. Hell, Onward hit D+ just a few weeks after VOD - why wouldn't Mulan be the same?
It's an extremely complex marketing task.
You're grossly overstating the quality of your average theater and the need for that experience for the vast majority of movies. Your average cinema would play 150 movies per year, maybe 1 or 2 of them would be "must have experiences" in a theater.
And yet for everyone blocking or skipping your ad you get 3 people noticing it that would have never seen it in a cinemaCool. So you're now paying for ad space that younger consumers are hardwired to skip automatically, if not block from the OS level. Go ask Birds of Prey how well a big social media spend goes for you.
Oh, this only gets worse when you consider international markets. VOD releases currently guarantee a crystal clear copy is available for piracy at the same time as any other online storefront. So as you tackle markets with far more cultural leniency towards piracy (which will only grow as they offer all Hollywood content with immediate availability) - you have to develop new DRM procedures, deals with international storefronts to establish a new product class, and convince cultures who just adopted the cinema format to download new movies rather than partake in them communally (which is also an issue in the US, to be clear).It's a far easier marketing task than having marketing delivery networks and strategies in every country, negotiating with theater chains in every country, dealing with ratings bodies in every country etc.
Even if they delivered the content on 20 different VOD networks, it's vastly less complex than dealing with a physical network required for theaters.
It doesn't make sense for every movie and would be dealt with on a case by case basis, but for the vast majority of films it makes a lot of sense and carries a lot more predictability.
Are you actually arguing people get their new movie marketing from cinemas instead of YouTube, instagram or Facebook? What is this 2005?
How much does Netflix spend on marketing their series compared to say a blockbuster movie? You certainly advertise a service but you greatly reduce the need to advertise content once you have people using your platform.
If this were accurate, I think a lot of movies would have performed far better than they actually have after heavily investing in social media marketing.And yet for everyone blocking or skipping your ad you get 3 people noticing it that would have never seen it in a cinema
Anybody rocking s King Kota avatar is ok in my book. That being said, what do you mean it's illegal for them to own a theatre chain? Is it hyperbole, or is something else going on?
There is a literal Supreme Court ruling preventing a studio from owning the entire production-to-distribution pipeline.Anybody rocking s King Kota avatar is ok in my book. That being said, what do you mean it's illegal for them to own a theatre chain? Is it hyperbole, or is something else going on?
Piracy is always going to be a major issue but outside of major blockbusters, many films are released internationally months after it is released in the US or even as it's available for purchase because of marketing spend, burden and ratings agencies.Oh, this only gets worse when you consider international markets. VOD releases currently guarantee a crystal clear copy is available for piracy at the same time as any other online storefront. So as you tackle markets with far more cultural leniency towards piracy (which will only grow as they offer all Hollywood content with immediate availability) - you have to develop new DRM procedures, deals with international storefronts to establish a new product class, and convince cultures who just adopted the cinema format to download new movies rather than partake in them communally (which is also an issue in the US, to be clear).
Not to mention the pure logistics of dealing movies to developing markets where cinemas are available - but reliable & high-quality home video is not. And don't expect any of the existing cinema chains to screen just for those markets - because they're mostly owned by the same people who own the US chains you just fucked out of existence.
Anybody rocking s King Kota avatar is ok in my book. That being said, what do you mean it's illegal for them to own a theatre chain? Is it hyperbole, or is something else going on?
20 to 30$ for one movie when you have Netflix right next to it?And none of these Netflix offers have the reach of Star Wars, Marvel or other big movies.
20-30$ isn't exactly a high price and i'm willing to bet there are enough faithfuls that would buy these movies on day 1 (or even special editions) to make them profitable.
The difference is that usually those films haven't been professionally subtitled or given a home release by the time they hit international cinemas. Under a VOD system, you'd have the same quality product as what's being sold domestically available online for free.Piracy is always going to be a major issue but outside of major blockbusters, many films are released internationally months after it is released in the US or even as it's available for purchase because of marketing spend, burden and ratings agencies.
I'm not arguing that cinemas are going away but there is undeniably demand and a need for change. Theaters served a need but now you can get 60-70% of the experience at home, for the vast majority of movies that is perfectly sufficient AND may be cost advantageous for studios as it finds a new market segment and reduces costs. As it stands, many movies simply don't get made because the theatrical release model carries a significant amount of upfront outlay and significant risk of loss. Close to 50% of movies make a loss at the cinema.
Honestly everything.
It's not uncommon in big cities and big chains, but smaller local theaters are going to be much cheaper.Lol, no it wasn't. The reaction was due to my suggestion that it costs close to $100 to take a family of four to the movies.
BTW - I'm in Canada. I don't know what the rest of you are paying for a movie ticket, but it hovers around $13-15/person here.
Evenings:
Adult $9.25
Child/Senior $7.00
Matinees (Before 6:00 pm)
All Seats $7.00
Digital 3D:
All Tickets $2.00 additional per ticket
Tuesdays
All tickets $5.00
I didn't say otherwise. Still, the future is here! 🙌🏼This sounds horrific and incredibly unlikely.
How so? It sounds to me like Disney is very much planning on theater distribution for the majority of their big films. I think this is a pretty safe response all things considered.