Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4942968
I think filming was done October 2019? So let's say around March when shit the fan...yeah I can buy that IF things were "on time" that it would have been ready for July.

However with the shut downs (which included studio lots), it was clear they would have plenty of time to maybe add things they originally didn't have time for, and/or to get things JUST right.

Who knows? Could be a major blessing in disguise.

Especially since we know some sort of extra filming was done relatively recently.
mrmichaelt, SpaceBallz liked this
#4942969
deadderek wrote: December 4th, 2020, 9:02 pm I think filming was done October 2019? So let's say around March when shit the fan...yeah I can buy that IF things were "on time" that it would have been ready for July.

However with the shut downs (which included studio lots), it was clear they would have plenty of time to maybe add things they originally didn't have time for, and/or to get things JUST right.

Who knows? Could be a major blessing in disguise.

Especially since we know some sort of extra filming was done relatively recently.
Yeah, October 17/18. I agree, with the shut downs in March, it's likely they were in post but had to stop for x amount of time then picked back up, decided to take extra time to polish and what not, and just finished recently.
deadderek liked this
#4942974
Even after Jason's post there's still people whining like children about the movie not going to streaming.

It's not hard to understand.
#4942978
SpaceBallz wrote: December 4th, 2020, 8:54 pm Curious, I wonder what they planned on releasing back in July for a cut if the film wasn't really done until now.
Movies are often rushed to meet a deadline for release. One of the most infamous examples is...Ghostbusters. And the sequel. Those movies had some of the craziest deadline to spectacle ratio.

This probably gave them more time to finesse and get it right.
robbritton, Kingpin, deadderek and 1 others liked this
#4942987
mrmichaelt wrote: December 5th, 2020, 4:00 am Nope. It's been pretty scarce when it comes to tie-ins.
And it's probably for the best, most tie-ins are pretty poor due to the tiny production window compared to a non-tie-in game's gestation period.
deadderek liked this
#4942994
deadderek wrote: December 5th, 2020, 2:16 am Even after Jason's post there's still people whining like children about the movie not going to streaming.

It's not hard to understand.
It's simple to understand that Jason doesn't have control over the release date and what Sony plans to do. It's also practical for Sony to offer covid weary audiences a chance to see the film who aren't that keen on going to theater's just yet. So yeah, I'd call that whining like children because you don't like the idea of streaming.
#4942995
timeware wrote: December 5th, 2020, 10:00 am
deadderek wrote: December 5th, 2020, 2:16 am Even after Jason's post there's still people whining like children about the movie not going to streaming.

It's not hard to understand.
It's simple to understand that Jason doesn't have control over the release date and what Sony plans to do. It's also practical for Sony to offer covid weary audiences a chance to see the film who aren't that keen on going to theater's just yet. So yeah, I'd call that whining like children because you don't like the idea of streaming.
Except...the movie will be released on streaming at some point anyways AFTER the theatrical run. Movies like this were meant to be seen in a theatre. Those who aren’t comfortable with that? Cool. The movie will come out on DVD, Blu Ray, 4K and Netflix just like every other movie.

I don’t buy for a second that some of the fans are afraid of Covid. They just want the movie NOW & don’t care how. Which is understandable. Waiting sucks. But seeing a Ghostbusters movie on the big screen with a full theatre is worth the wait. For me anyways. I’ve waited, what? 25 years? I can wait a few more months.
deadderek, devilmanozzy liked this
#4942998
You have a point but there are going to be those who aren't fans of the franchise that will be getting into Ghostbusters for the first time. These are the people that Sony want's to target on top of us net nerds.

Even after taking the vaccine I'm not going to be comfortable sitting in a packed theater much less visiting the concessions stand. I still plan on seeing the film in the theater it just depends on how the guidelines are being followed.

I'm not asking for the streaming to be released early. They can do a dual release when it hit's theaters.

To give examples of directors not having control over release dates I can throw out fantastic 4 and the superman movie Cage was supposed to star in. I'm sure Jason is allowed input but Sony is the ultimate decider with whatever happens.
#4943001
It's not a dislike of the concept of streaming, or the eventual streaming of the film... It's concern of Afterlife going to streaming over a theatrical run, performing less well in that medium, and the impact it has on the franchise in the future.

It's also the frustration of going in circles with the fans who want the instant gratification of a streaming release.

It's not that we don't want to see it, we want to be able to see it with out families, our friends, on the big screen in the magical setting of the cinema, and ideally helping to make this outing of the Ghostbusters a reasonable success. :)
Glenn Frederick, deadderek, groschopf and 1 others liked this
#4943009
This stuff about theatrical vs streaming is just beginning. After Disney follows suit with Disney plus getting MCU movies (which is a fair bet at this point), ALL the other studios will follow suit, including Sony. I understand what Jason said, and I don't disagree with him. I'd LOVE to throw on my pack, have the whole family geared up, and go watch the new movie. But that's just not the reality anymore. We have no reason to believe that 2021 will be much different than 2020. If you want to bank it all on the vaccine, well that's your right I suppose.

This whole thing with theaters though, it's bigger than even covid. I'm a huge music fan as well, I remember what happened with music in the late 90s and early 2000s. It's a whole new industry now. The film industry knows that the change is inevitable, they just want to make as much money as they can, and switch to streaming. Do you think Disney or Warner brothers care about theaters? No. They care about making the most money possible. Theater chains can take as much as 50% (depending on the chain) on ticket sales. Signing people up for a monthly service (that you own like Disney plus), means you get 100% of the money, plus it's a guarantee (due to the monthly fee).

Sony is behind the 8 ball here (like always with them, tbh). Warner signed the deal with HBO Max, Disney will just do Disney Plus, I believe Paramount has a deal with someone, so that means Sony will HAVE to go to Netflix. Netflix will have leverage on them in the negotiations.
SpaceBallz, groschopf liked this
#4943010
After we were declared Covid free our cinemas opened again and with in the first week I went and saw Tenet and I was quite comfortable. I had no concerns.
The local cinema set up a 1.5 metre distance (two seat between every person and every second row used) yes they are limiting ticket sales but I felt totally safe.
After each session they send in a cleaning crew who clean and sanitise the used seats.

I felt at no time that there was an issue. I just simply enjoyed the movie.

I think we can safely see Afterlife come June without fear. Just smaller crowds.
#4943016
I'm not sure if this is the case with anyone else here, but our local theater shut down about 7 years ago. We have to travel 2-3 hours to see a movie. From what I read, a LOT of theater chains just don't make the money that they used to since streaming started growing.
#4943019
MikeyJ122 wrote: December 5th, 2020, 3:54 pm This stuff about theatrical vs streaming is just beginning. After Disney follows suit with Disney plus getting MCU movies (which is a fair bet at this point), ALL the other studios will follow suit, including Sony. I understand what Jason said, and I don't disagree with him. I'd LOVE to throw on my pack, have the whole family geared up, and go watch the new movie. But that's just not the reality anymore. We have no reason to believe that 2021 will be much different than 2020. If you want to bank it all on the vaccine, well that's your right I suppose.

This whole thing with theaters though, it's bigger than even covid. I'm a huge music fan as well, I remember what happened with music in the late 90s and early 2000s. It's a whole new industry now. The film industry knows that the change is inevitable, they just want to make as much money as they can, and switch to streaming. Do you think Disney or Warner brothers care about theaters? No. They care about making the most money possible. Theater chains can take as much as 50% (depending on the chain) on ticket sales. Signing people up for a monthly service (that you own like Disney plus), means you get 100% of the money, plus it's a guarantee (due to the monthly fee).

Sony is behind the 8 ball here (like always with them, tbh). Warner signed the deal with HBO Max, Disney will just do Disney Plus, I believe Paramount has a deal with someone, so that means Sony will HAVE to go to Netflix. Netflix will have leverage on them in the negotiations.
Do you have any idea how much money these companies will be giving up if they go to streaming only? This won’t be the the new norm. It can’t be.

Do you think Disney recouped it’s 200+ million dollar investment on Mulan? Nope. This is all about stock prices. Right now investors see streaming as “the big thing” in the entertainment industry. But it’s a short money solution. Theatrical revenue is significant to these companies. They aren’t going to give that up. This is all about stock prices & COVID. Warner’s did this so it’s stock would rise.

Streaming is an awesome source of revenue and customer analytics but there’s a sustainability problem. Look at Netflix’s stock price. Now...what is Netflix? Does it have theme parks? Does it have utilities? No. It’s an entertainment company that people are treating like a tech stock. They make movies & TV shows with a built in distribution system. That’s it. They also have piles of debt. Warner Bros is AT&T, Disney is Disney, Universal is Comcast. Netflix is...a movie and TV production company. That’s not sustainable. Not with customer churn, a saturated market and expensive licensing deals/production costs. Meaning there’s a ceiling on how much money a company like Netflix can make. The bottom will give out. Might not be this year or next. But it’s coming.

Movies are expensive. Avengers Endgame cost almost 400 million. Disney charges customers, what? 8.99 per month. Endgame made almost 3 billion dollars in theatrical. That’s on top of the 8.99 per month. No one is giving that up.
#4943020
It's not that we don't want to see it, we want to be able to see it with out families, our friends, on the big screen in the magical setting of the cinema, and ideally helping to make this outing of the Ghostbusters a reasonable success. :)
I want that experience like the rest of us. Hell, i'm one of those people that will spend twenty dollars on a ticket then drop another twenty on the streaming purchase, then by the DVD, and possible video game console downloads. That's not including the video game tie in and add ons if we get a game.

This film will probobly make at least a grand off me between the merchandise and movie copies alone. But we are living in chaotic times. HBO max is dropping their movies for a limited time so time will tell if that's something they decide to do.
#4943021
Netflix just feels like the bargain bin with a couple of well-known films sprinkled in for good measure. I don't know that I'd want Afterlife to get slapped between Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull and Big Mouth. Considering all the merch Sony wants to tie in, and how badly they need an IP to be a hit (especially after that last MiB film), and I doubt we'll see it on streaming without a simultaneous theatrical release.

I'm expecting Afterlife in theaters in about a year. If it comes out sooner, great. We can all laugh at how wrong I was.

We're looking at a bad December here in the states. Our numbers are probably two weeks behind what's actually hitting. January will be even worse.

Healthcare workers have been getting their asses kicked for months now. Morale is low, staffing is problematic as more people get sick, hospital space is an increasing issue, and the ambulance services that transport the sickest patients are also taking a big hit. Transmission has doubtlessly increased after Thanksgiving and Black Friday -- and it will get worse after Christmas and New Years. We're on a similar timeline as the 1918 pandemic at this point.

Large-scale distribution of the vaccine might start making a difference in the Spring. Both shots require two doses -- you'll need a second Pfizer shot three weeks after the first, and four weeks after the first Moderna shot before you get the second one. If you get the first shot in April, you might not get the second until May. So there's a month gone just getting the necessary dosage. And just getting the shot will be a bottleneck for months.

Pfizer's shot needs to be stored in such prohibitively cold storage that it won't be readily available to poorer, areas without the necessary infrastructure to store it. We're already seeing hacks aimed possibly at disrupting distribution or even intercepting doses so they can be stolen and put on the black market. The vaccination process will take a while and there will be hiccups.

I don't expect the pandemic will be curtailed enough by Summer to go to the theater. MAYBE the Fall... but more likely we'll have to wait until the holidays in 2021. Even then, movie theaters -- if they're still in business -- will need to dust off their venues and equipment and staff back up.

Plan for the worst and hope for the best.
devilmanozzy liked this
#4943024
Kingpin wrote: December 5th, 2020, 8:49 am And it's probably for the best, most tie-ins are pretty poor due to the tiny production window compared to a non-tie-in game's gestation period.
True. I'd love for a tie-in book or comic instead of a video game. Ghostbusters: The Video Game set the bar maybe too high for all games to come after it. I really enjoyed the Ghosts From Our Past book for ATC. I'd kill to see them do something similar like Egon's journal or logbook for Afterlife. Doesn't look like it's in the cards but IDW doing an adaption of Afterlife could have been neat.
deadderek, Kingpin, Alphagaia and 2 others liked this
#4943025
Wev'e come such a long way from the Ghostbusters video game in terms of graphics.

Even free online MMO games have amazing graphics now. Look at Destiny, it used to be that gameplay movies wern't on par with the actual games graphics and now it is. Fallen Order was a decent game as well. Little short though.

Hell, Bruce Campbell was just recently talking about a new evil dead game being in the works. It would be a dream come true to get both Ghostbusters and The Evil Dead video games released in the same year!
#4943026
RichardLess wrote: December 5th, 2020, 6:16 pm
MikeyJ122 wrote: December 5th, 2020, 3:54 pm This stuff about theatrical vs streaming is just beginning. After Disney follows suit with Disney plus getting MCU movies (which is a fair bet at this point), ALL the other studios will follow suit, including Sony. I understand what Jason said, and I don't disagree with him. I'd LOVE to throw on my pack, have the whole family geared up, and go watch the new movie. But that's just not the reality anymore. We have no reason to believe that 2021 will be much different than 2020. If you want to bank it all on the vaccine, well that's your right I suppose.

This whole thing with theaters though, it's bigger than even covid. I'm a huge music fan as well, I remember what happened with music in the late 90s and early 2000s. It's a whole new industry now. The film industry knows that the change is inevitable, they just want to make as much money as they can, and switch to streaming. Do you think Disney or Warner brothers care about theaters? No. They care about making the most money possible. Theater chains can take as much as 50% (depending on the chain) on ticket sales. Signing people up for a monthly service (that you own like Disney plus), means you get 100% of the money, plus it's a guarantee (due to the monthly fee).

Sony is behind the 8 ball here (like always with them, tbh). Warner signed the deal with HBO Max, Disney will just do Disney Plus, I believe Paramount has a deal with someone, so that means Sony will HAVE to go to Netflix. Netflix will have leverage on them in the negotiations.
Do you have any idea how much money these companies will be giving up if they go to streaming only? This won’t be the the new norm. It can’t be.

Do you think Disney recouped it’s 200+ million dollar investment on Mulan? Nope. This is all about stock prices. Right now investors see streaming as “the big thing” in the entertainment industry. But it’s a short money solution. Theatrical revenue is significant to these companies. They aren’t going to give that up. This is all about stock prices & COVID. Warner’s did this so it’s stock would rise.

Streaming is an awesome source of revenue and customer analytics but there’s a sustainability problem. Look at Netflix’s stock price. Now...what is Netflix? Does it have theme parks? Does it have utilities? No. It’s an entertainment company that people are treating like a tech stock. They make movies & TV shows with a built in distribution system. That’s it. They also have piles of debt. Warner Bros is AT&T, Disney is Disney, Universal is Comcast. Netflix is...a movie and TV production company. That’s not sustainable. Not with customer churn, a saturated market and expensive licensing deals/production costs. Meaning there’s a ceiling on how much money a company like Netflix can make. The bottom will give out. Might not be this year or next. But it’s coming.

Movies are expensive. Avengers Endgame cost almost 400 million. Disney charges customers, what? 8.99 per month. Endgame made almost 3 billion dollars in theatrical. That’s on top of the 8.99 per month. No one is giving that up.
You are thinking short term, these changes WILL happen in the long term. Even if it means losing some money now, to get MORE money later. Right now Disney charges $8.99, I'm not aware of the subscriber count, but it's a few million at least. If they put the new MCU film on there (not Mulan, that wasn't ever going to be a big hit), if they get 20 million new subs because they want to watch the new MCU film, thats $179,000,000 new money. Plus add in the previous subscribers, that EASILY covers the cost of the film. Do you think 20 million people will watch the new MCU movies? I bet a lot more than that. Let's not forget that's money that they DONT have to share with anyone.

Move forward 10 years, and now let's say streaming is the new norm and "old" television is dying out. You don't think Disney Plus will be in most homes in America? That $8.99 per month sub fee multiplied by the number of households in America is FAR more money than movies can make in the theaters. It's simple supply and demand. If you put Disney plus in every house in America, than more people will have access to your films. Which means more people watch them, which means more people are giving you money. Which don't kid yourself, once those MCU films start coming on there, they will raise the price of Disney Plus. Streaming IS the future of film, and all the studios know it. It just a matter of time that all the studios have their own streaming services, if you want to watch that movie, you have to buy that service. Again the theaters take a cut of the pie, with streaming the studios can take it all. The pile on all the old films/shows on the service as free "filler". Release new blockbusters on a spread out schedule (to maximize new subs, only one big movie per month). It'll change the game, yes. But it might not be a bad thing, for the consumer.
#4943027
MikeyJ122 wrote: December 5th, 2020, 11:37 pmYou are thinking short term, these changes WILL happen in the long term. Even if it means losing some money now, to get MORE money later. Right now Disney charges $8.99, I'm not aware of the subscriber count, but it's a few million at least. If they put the new MCU film on there (not Mulan, that wasn't ever going to be a big hit), if they get 20 million new subs because they want to watch the new MCU film, thats $179,000,000 new money. Plus add in the previous subscribers, that EASILY covers the cost of the film. Do you think 20 million people will watch the new MCU movies? I bet a lot more than that. Let's not forget that's money that they DONT have to share with anyone.

Move forward 10 years, and now let's say streaming is the new norm and "old" television is dying out. You don't think Disney Plus will be in most homes in America? That $8.99 per month sub fee multiplied by the number of households in America is FAR more money than movies can make in the theaters. It's simple supply and demand. If you put Disney plus in every house in America, than more people will have access to your films. Which means more people watch them, which means more people are giving you money. Which don't kid yourself, once those MCU films start coming on there, they will raise the price of Disney Plus. Streaming IS the future of film, and all the studios know it. It just a matter of time that all the studios have their own streaming services, if you want to watch that movie, you have to buy that service. Again the theaters take a cut of the pie, with streaming the studios can take it all. The pile on all the old films/shows on the service as free "filler". Release new blockbusters on a spread out schedule (to maximize new subs, only one big movie per month). It'll change the game, yes. But it might not be a bad thing, for the consumer.
RichardLess and I have our disagreements, but not on this. Yes, conventional movie theaters are not going to be around forever, but if you think this kind of seismic change to the entertainment industry is coming within the next year or two (even with things looking bad as they are), I have no question that's a losing bet. There were people who thought Blu-ray and other forms of physical media were in their death throes five years ago, and yet, while they're unquestionably on the decline, I would still wager we have most of a decade before even that ship fully sinks.

https://deadline.com/2020/11/mulan-pvod ... 234613878/

This month was the first month we could potentially have heard a hard number in terms of how Mulan did on Disney+ PVOD...and Disney continued to keep their mouths shut, calling the experiment a success but refusing to quantify it. As the article lays out, there are quite a few questions about how Disney approached the release of the movie, and all of them end up pointing to damage control.

The article says 73.7m people globally subscribe to Disney+. That is theoretically a great monthly haul, but just remember that just one of these movies has got to earn in the $500m range for it to be a profitable release for the studio (once one factors in not just the production cost, but also marketing budgets and back-end/profit participation deals for talent). On top of that, the amount of money D+ subscriptions bring in also has to cover anything else made for the service -- it won't just be one movie, it'll be multiple movies and multiple TV shows. Once you really start to picture the math of the subscription fees outpacing the spend, it becomes much easier to see how tricky a proposition it is to turn Disney+ into the studio's big moneymaker. Recouping the cost of just one movie -- and Marvel usually puts out a minimum of two or three a year, plus whatever Disney themselves is releasing, plus Pixar, then the other D+ content -- is already almost an entire month's worth of subscriber fees just by itself.

73.08m -- very close to Disney+'s global number of subscribers -- is also the number of people who subscribe to Netflix as of Q3 2020. The other major issue here that the streaming giants haven't even attempted to resolve is the increasingly likely possibility that US households get frustrated by having to choose between so many streaming services. You can't just assume, especially with the market becoming more crowded and costs going up, that every household in America will have Disney+ no matter what. Many of them will choose Netflix, will choose HBO Max, will choose Peacock, will choose whatever the next major player is.

Technology changes, and industries move forward, but to say that Sony is old-fashioned because they won't dump all their movies on streaming is ridiculous. We're not there yet.
deadderek, RichardLess, Kingpin and 2 others liked this
#4943028
timeware wrote: December 5th, 2020, 11:33 pm Wev'e come such a long way from the Ghostbusters video game in terms of graphics.

Even free online MMO games have amazing graphics now. Look at Destiny, it used to be that gameplay movies wern't on par with the actual games graphics and now it is. Fallen Order was a decent game as well. Little short though.

Hell, Bruce Campbell was just recently talking about a new evil dead game being in the works. It would be a dream come true to get both Ghostbusters and The Evil Dead video games released in the same year!
Come to think of it, I wonder how well the remastered version did in sales and how well that Ghostbusters World did in Sony's eyes. The performance of those two are probably the factors on another game getting made period, much less one that could surpass The Video Game.
#4943029
I'm guessing they might even go mobile again, since this movie will most probably also appeal to (young) teenagers.

Either that or it at least has to run on the Switch (and minor upscale for PS and xBox). This means the best graphics are out of the window, but nowadays even passable (like the videogame) is fine.

I'm curious what kind of game it will be. With the focus on the features of the Wrecto-1 I'm hoping for an reimagining of the Commedore 64 game, as you drive around a lot, with a Summerville Map and new end boss. Think more ghosts, even chasing fleeing one you can chase with the ecto.

Perhaps even new maps, so after Summerville we can go to NY.
#4943030
Movie tie in games have always sucked. I highly doubt we'll see one for Afterlife.
#4943031
deadderek wrote: December 6th, 2020, 4:34 am Movie tie in games have always sucked. I highly doubt we'll see one for Afterlife.
They usually suck because they have to be in a hurry to coincide with the launch of the movie.
That isn't so much of an issue this time around because of the delay.
#4943033
MikeyJ122 wrote: December 5th, 2020, 11:37 pm
RichardLess wrote: December 5th, 2020, 6:16 pm

Do you have any idea how much money these companies will be giving up if they go to streaming only? This won’t be the the new norm. It can’t be.

Do you think Disney recouped it’s 200+ million dollar investment on Mulan? Nope. This is all about stock prices. Right now investors see streaming as “the big thing” in the entertainment industry. But it’s a short money solution. Theatrical revenue is significant to these companies. They aren’t going to give that up. This is all about stock prices & COVID. Warner’s did this so it’s stock would rise.

Streaming is an awesome source of revenue and customer analytics but there’s a sustainability problem. Look at Netflix’s stock price. Now...what is Netflix? Does it have theme parks? Does it have utilities? No. It’s an entertainment company that people are treating like a tech stock. They make movies & TV shows with a built in distribution system. That’s it. They also have piles of debt. Warner Bros is AT&T, Disney is Disney, Universal is Comcast. Netflix is...a movie and TV production company. That’s not sustainable. Not with customer churn, a saturated market and expensive licensing deals/production costs. Meaning there’s a ceiling on how much money a company like Netflix can make. The bottom will give out. Might not be this year or next. But it’s coming.

Movies are expensive. Avengers Endgame cost almost 400 million. Disney charges customers, what? 8.99 per month. Endgame made almost 3 billion dollars in theatrical. That’s on top of the 8.99 per month. No one is giving that up.
You are thinking short term, these changes WILL happen in the long term. Even if it means losing some money now, to get MORE money later. Right now Disney charges $8.99, I'm not aware of the subscriber count, but it's a few million at least. If they put the new MCU film on there (not Mulan, that wasn't ever going to be a big hit), if they get 20 million new subs because they want to watch the new MCU film, thats $179,000,000 new money. Plus add in the previous subscribers, that EASILY covers the cost of the film. Do you think 20 million people will watch the new MCU movies? I bet a lot more than that. Let's not forget that's money that they DONT have to share with anyone.

Move forward 10 years, and now let's say streaming is the new norm and "old" television is dying out. You don't think Disney Plus will be in most homes in America? That $8.99 per month sub fee multiplied by the number of households in America is FAR more money than movies can make in the theaters. It's simple supply and demand. If you put Disney plus in every house in America, than more people will have access to your films. Which means more people watch them, which means more people are giving you money. Which don't kid yourself, once those MCU films start coming on there, they will raise the price of Disney Plus. Streaming IS the future of film, and all the studios know it. It just a matter of time that all the studios have their own streaming services, if you want to watch that movie, you have to buy that service. Again the theaters take a cut of the pie, with streaming the studios can take it all. The pile on all the old films/shows on the service as free "filler". Release new blockbusters on a spread out schedule (to maximize new subs, only one big movie per month). It'll change the game, yes. But it might not be a bad thing, for the consumer.
Here’s the problem that you are not seeing. You can only charge 1 subscription fee. One household 8.99.

Theatrical is 1 ticket PER PERSON. And that person might go see that movie again and again. Each time a new ticket is sold.

I don’t think streaming is the future for movies. I think it’s the future for TV.

There are only so many TV’s. Movie studios are not going to give up that billion dollar worldwide gross revenue. Anything on top of that is cherry. Streaming is just another revenue source. Why give up the theatrical revenue window when you can get that AND subscriptions? What drove people to Disney+? It’s library & price point. Look at how much money was made worldwide from movie tickets in 2018 & 2019. Billions of dollars. You don’t just erase that off a balance sheet & say “We’ll make that up when we are in every household in America”. No. You want both.

Things that have been heralded as the end of cinema: Television, Colour Television, Cable TV, HBO, VHS, Laserdisc, Big screen TV’s, video game consoles, sports on TV. Streaming is just another link in the chain. Yes, COVID has changed the game for now. But it won’t last forever.
Alphagaia, deadderek, Kingpin and 2 others liked this
#4943039
I'm sorry, but you guys are all so wrong. Most, if not all, industry experts are all ready calling it.

Watch this video and get back with me. Look at those numbers...

https://youtu.be/PA2zU7CuNPk

Disney made 11 billion dollars in profit in 2019, that includes EVERYTHING they own (theme parks, movies, merchandise, etc). Netflix has 193 million global subs, which gives them 23 billion dollars in revenue. But they spent 14 billion on licensing fees. 10 billion on original content, 4 billion in sales and operating costs. So Netflix in 2019 actually lost money here. But Netflix will be fine.

So Netflix in 2019 $
$ 23 billion dollars revenue
-14 billion licensing fees
-10 billion original content
- 4 billion operating costs
Equals a 5 billion dollar loss (but again netflix will be fine overall).


Now plug in those Disney plus numbers. If they get Netflix level subs (which bringing in the MCU films will do). It's projected that by 2023 Disney plus will have over 200 million subs.

Disneys overall profit in 2019 11 billion
Disney projected profit on Disney plus (once they get Netflix's level of subs) is 24 billion.
But here's the kicker, they DONT have any licensing fees. 10 billion on original content (films and shows), operating costs 7 billion.

$24 billion
- 7 billion operating costs
-10 billion in films and shows
Equals a profit of 7 billion dollars. Which that's just Disney plus!!! Again Disney made 11 billion off of everything in 2019. So they have the potential to make the same or more off of streaming than they do off of cinemas.

I know a lot of you are rooting for theaters because of the experience, I get that. But your backing the losing horse. These are ACTUAL numbers, actual statistics. Warner brothers dropped the gauntlet, Disney will follow suit (people are already expecting Disney to announce Black Widow on Disney Plus as soon as Dec 10). Once Disney makes the shift, it's game over man. Paramount will follow suit, and that just leaves Sony and Universal. Universal cant because they signed a contract with AMC earlier in the pandemic. So they are left out at the moment. Paramount has their own service. So that really only leaves Sony. I'm telling you guys now, expect Afterlife on Netflix. Itll be in theaters as well, but it'll be on Netflix.

Bottom line, more money can be made via streaming than was EVER made in cinemas.
  • 1
  • 417
  • 418
  • 419
  • 420
  • 421
  • 448

I'd love to finish my collection. I'm only short a[…]

Great work! It looks the part!

Turn off the battery, then turn it back on and try[…]

Faulty cyclotron light

Send user Spongeface a pm, he designed them and mi[…]