Predicting the Movie Hits & Bombs of 2020

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Dec 4, 2019.

  1. yamfox

    yamfox Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    The final season premiere for Game of Thrones was downloaded illegally 54 million times, while the Neilson numbers say 17.4 mil watched it legally... and HBO is $15, not $30. And I honestly think the audience for Mulan is more akin to GOT than Trolls 2 (what young kid is going to be ecstatic to watch a dry, humorless, non-musical period war film?).
    Nowadays I think the way most normal people do it is just Google “movie name watch free” and click on some shady foreign site they can beam to a Chromecast, though certainly the people who actually care about picture quality are still using torrents and Plex.
     
  2. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    If piracy is that widespread, and Disney is going to release Mulan in theatres outside of the US, the movie will be pirated.

    As I said above, they might as well offer the people who play by the rules, or are too ignorant to know how to break the rules, a legal option to pay to watch the movie.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  3. yamfox

    yamfox Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    I guess my point is that far more people would be watching it legitimately if the price was reasonable enough to not bother having to jump through hoops ($20 feels exponentially more reasonable than $30, seeing as the latter really makes it feel like you have to be watching with at least 3 or 4 people to be getting your money’s worth) or if they had otherwise just decided to debut it as a true Disney+ original included with subscription and use the social media impressions to motivate signups and sell merchandise.
    Netflix, a company with a fraction of Disney’s market cap, paid just as much (if not more) to produce The Irishman and released that to the public for “free” with subscription... just makes it feel like a pure greed move on the Mouse’s part.
    As is, I’ve seen nothing but mockery, contempt, and pirate gifs on Twitter over this announcement.
     
    budwhite and Jrr like this.
  4. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    I agree that $20 would have been a more reasonable price point. I guess since they spent $200 million making it, they want to recoup their investment. Whether pricing it at $30, $20, or giving it away as part of a Disney+ subscription to attract more subscribers is their best option, I don’t know. I assume they’ve decided that waiting until late 2021 or 2022 to screen it in American theatres isn’t their best option.

    History-Making $200 Million ‘Mulan’ Budget Didn’t Intimidate Niki Caro: ‘It Was Satisfying’
     
  5. Jrr

    Jrr Forum Resident

    Totally agree. But Disney did say they are experimenting and I think they are trying to learn what people will pay for a first run film; I’m not sure anyone knows yet, including anyone here. I know I absolutely would not pay more than $10 unless it was an exceptional film I was really anxious to view (yes, I realize you “own” it but not in my mind...if I can’t see it in my hands, it isn’t mine until I leave this earth) and in that case I would go to the theatre if that was an option. I want to hold any film I pay more than $10 for in my hands. I can see $19.99 being reasonable even though I wouldn’t pay it (at my house no one else by me would watch a PPV film so I can ammortize it). My gut tells me Disney will find the $19.99 price point would bring them much more money in volume than $29.99. And when we discuss this issue around here, I think $9.99 is mentioned more than any other price point, followed by $19.99, which is still fair even though a lot here including me won’t pay that.

    What concerns me is this trend of charging a subscription fee and then “adding” premium product. Yes, I know it’s a thing now in our society, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it, and it wouldn’t be if people would stop supporting it. I bought a lifetime subscription to an on line company that provides instant access to background graphics, audio clips etc to those of us that create video content or print ads. And sure enough, about six months later up popped a premium content add on section which really infuriates me. And as a result, a lot of the better stuff you now have to pay extra for. I guess as long as we’re dumb enough to go for this sort of marketing protocol, the more we’re going to see it. No, I don’t think Disney should give this film away, but if enough people pay to see it get ready for more premium content. Where do you draw the line? At a Star Wars spin off series that has a high budget? The current one everyone seems to love (I haven’t seen it) could end up being Premium Content next year, for example. People will see Mulan as an exception during exceptional times, but I see a danger where this trend will end up costing a lot of extra money because most people seem so impulsive and just click the “buy” button. Netflix really received a lot of good will by how they handled the Irishman; give people a choice. That is an excellent norm when theaters are open again. But, I don’t think the $29.99 is going to work and I look forward to seeing how this plays out. I agree with the poster...that’s high enough Disney is going to see this bootlegged like crazy. At $20 it’s not worth the effort for most adults imo.
     
  6. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    It's shocking because I've never heard of a $200M film going direct to pay-per-view. Most of the films at that level (James Bond, the Marvel films, Tenet, etc.) are all being heldover until next year. The news is that Disney is going to try to adopt the "temporary" model of Disney+ for a film of this size. My take is it will not make nearly what they would have expected in theaters, which would be north of $800M.

    Naw, Irishman was intended from the start for streaming, and had a budget of $159M. It was also 3-1/2 hours long, which is not reasonable for most theaters. I think Mulan and Irishman are apples and oranges, two completely different things, different kinds of movies intended for different venues. Mulan was always intended for a big summer theatrical release, so relegating it to Disney+ streaming is a shock (and a desperate gamble by Disney execs).

    Ooooh, bad (but timely) use of that word.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
    SandAndGlass, Cousin It and Deuce66 like this.
  7. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident

    To gross $500 million from their subscribers, they will need 16,666,666/60.500.000 = 27.5% to purchase the PPV. assuming Disney gets 100% of the gross. Also they will closely monitor the change in subscribers as they get closer to the release date, will there be a significant bump up? It's a worthy experiment to determine if this is a potential route to save big budget movies in the event that theatres remain closed for months or simply go out of business.
     
    Jrr likes this.
  8. Jrr

    Jrr Forum Resident

    Vidiot mentions the film would have done at least 800 million or more at the theatre, and that sounds about right. But, they will have almost no marketing costs, and are splitting nothing with theatre owners. That’s a lot of millions that don’t have to be made! So, I bet the thought here is that Disney is willing to forgo potential earnings in the theater in exchange for what is going to be some very, very interesting marketing information that can be used going forward. Is this viable? How many will pay a premium $29.99 VS, when they lower it later, $19.99? Now’s the time for them to see imo. I doubt they are going to be nice and share this info, but we’ll see by their actions later how this played out. Also, there’s nothing saying they can’t still release it to the US theatres next year anyway. I frankly didn’t know Mulan was such a big deal in the US, and based on things I’m reading, I’m not sure it is. We’ll see. As Deuce said, it is a worthy experiment!
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  9. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
  10. mBen989

    mBen989 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Scranton, PA
    Shall I compare Disney's plan for Mulan to a summer's day? No. Instead I'll point out this is similar to something video game publishers have been doing for the past few years.

    Also, my math tells me Disney needs about seven million active users to pay the premium surcharge before they can recover their investment.
     
  11. johnnyyen

    johnnyyen Senior Member

    Location:
    Scotland
    Obviously they are prepared to take an initial loss on this film, but I’m sure it will go into profit eventually. And depending on how long cinemas are closed, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Tenet and the Bond film will also go down this route.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  12. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe
    Tenet is going to open in Australia, Canada and Europe on 26 August. China and USA have a 3 September release date.

    Tenet (2020) - Release Info - IMDb

    Tenet Has Yet Another New Release Date, Will It Stick?

    If those dates are confirmed, I still think it's a huge gamble. Covid seems like it's not going to stop. Going to a theatre in Spain in late August 2020? Hmmm...:sigh:
     
    SandAndGlass, johnnyyen and Vidiot like this.
  13. yamfox

    yamfox Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    I feel terrible for the timing of this movie. I'd like to see it, but even if it opens here I don't think there's any chance I'll be going to a theater anytime soon.
    May have to go the drive-in route, but I'm sure stereo audio over FM in my car + an outdoor screen is not what Nolan had in mind when he made his 70mm IMAX movie...
     
  14. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe

    Yes and yes, I don't even consider watching it at a drive-in. I may go to the theater only if it's empty... not going to risk my health for a movie; I fear this is a day one blu ray purchase. I miss watching movies on the big screen.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  15. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident

    U.S. judge ends decades-old movie theater rules set by Hollywood studios

    • A federal judge on Friday granted the U.S. government’s request to immediately end the Paramount Decrees, a set of antitrust rules from the late 1940s and early 1950s that ended Hollywood’s monopoly on producing, distributing and exhibiting movies.
    • U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan said the Department of Justice “offered a reasonable and persuasive explanation” for why terminating the consent decrees would “serve the public interest in free and unfettered competition.”
    • Last November, the Justice Department moved to end the decrees, enacted after the Supreme Court in 1948 said Hollywood’s biggest studios had illegally monopolized the movie distribution and theater industries.
    A federal judge on Friday granted the U.S. government’s request to immediately end the Paramount Decrees, a set of antitrust rules from the late 1940s and early 1950s that ended Hollywood’s monopoly on producing, distributing and exhibiting movies.

    U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan said the Department of Justice “offered a reasonable and persuasive explanation” for why terminating the consent decrees would “serve the public interest in free and unfettered competition.”

    Last November, the Justice Department moved to end the decrees, enacted after the Supreme Court in 1948 said Hollywood’s biggest studios had illegally monopolized the movie distribution and theater industries.

    New rules made it illegal for studios to unreasonably limit how many theaters could show movies in specific geographic areas.

    They also banned “block booking,” which forced theaters to show bad movies as well as blockbusters as part of a package, and “circuit dealing,” the mass licensing of movies to theaters under common ownership rather than theater-by-theater.

    The Justice Department said the decrees were no longer needed after multiplexes, broadcast and cable TV, DVDs and the internet changed how people watch movies, and because studios no longer dominated movie theater ownership.

    Three chains - AMC Entertainment, Cinemark and Regal - control about half of the 41,000 U.S. movie screens.

    Torres’ order includes a two-year “sunset” provision for ending the block booking and circuit dealing bans, to minimize market disruption.

    Critics have said terminating the decrees could threaten the survival of smaller theater owners.

    The National Association of Theatre Owners, whose members have about 35,000 screens, supported keeping the block booking ban.

    In a statement, it said Torres’ decision “simply shifts the mechanism for enforcement into regular, existing channels.”

    Another group, the Independent Cinema Alliance, said the termination could reduce its members’ competitiveness and movie diversity. It was not immediately available to comment.

    The Justice Department has in recent months moved to end dozens of consent decrees it considers obsolete.
    The cases are U.S. v. Paramount Pictures and U.S. v. Loew’s et al, U.S. District Court and Southern District of New York.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  16. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
  17. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
    The Week Old Hollywood Finally, Actually Died

    My impression is that some executives are desperately trying to dictate a model without considering or even understanding the audience or prospective audience. So the 'new Hollywood' resembles the 'old' in some fundamental ways. But I'd expect no less from a rapacious, amoral behemoth like AT&T - possibly the most fraudulent company I've ever dealt with. I can summarize "we have a pipe - let's just fill it with crap and pump it to the great unwashed for as much as we can get away with"

    Remember, one of those "T's" stands for 'Telegraph' and at least that technology didn't self-immolate:
    https://forums.att.com/conversation...t-box-caught-on-fire/5df025c2bad5f2f606969d8f
     
    brownie61 likes this.
  18. brownie61

    brownie61 Forum Resident

    I read this article yesterday and was saddened by it.

    I found this quote from the article the most depressing part:
    “WarnerMedia’s Mr. Kilar told me in an email that his cuts and reorganizations were aimed at pushing the company “from a wholesaling mind set to a retailing mind set” — that is, from the old studio hitmakers’ handshake deals with distributors to a techie’s focus on user-friendly streaming interfaces and subscriber retention.”

    The new people who are focussing on “subscriber retention” are going to make movies less and less accessible unless one is able to subscribe to every service. Which, of course, is not feasible unless you have a ridiculous amount of money to throw away every month.
     
    Jrr and PhilBorder like this.
  19. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
    You'd think a company that would take over an entertainment enterprise would have at least a fractional sense of 'entertainment' or a microscopic appreciation for 'art'. I can't think of a company less suited to overseeing entertainment than AT&T.

    Good luck with 'subscriber retention'. Since they can't get their phone billing correct and have left a slew of p.o'.d past-and-never-again consumers in their wake, one wonders about user friendly interfaces, not to mention 'retention'.

    I have to say, one thing they are really good at is treated customers very very badly. Hey, maybe that could be a exclusive documentary!
     
    Jrr and brownie61 like this.
  20. Jrr

    Jrr Forum Resident

    Yup. It’s going to be another churn industry. You know, imo our country continues to go from being great because the majority wanted to do what was good for people, into one that is quickly devolving into one of immense failure as industry after industry change over to only caring about the bottom line, and marginalizing employees (Or getting rid of them all together) in the process. That all spills over to how people also treat one another (how is that looking lately)?And I’m just as guilty for buying from these companies, so really we’re all to blame as a society. I hope we like where it’s leading is. It is nowhere good I can assure you. I really feel terrible for my three kids in their twenties, and my sympathies to those with a great heart and good intentions. There is precious little of that left, as the article bears out. And corporate America certainly has no room for that. How did customer service treat you last time you called? Especially places like AT&T? And yet they thrive. Really, I just don't get it. What happened to us?
     
  21. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
    a big part of the problem stems from the way cable companies were awarded franchises (aka 'regional monopolies') in the 80's. and how they were allowed to conglomerate. And how, in theory, the 'competition' offered by Apple TV or YouTube or Hulu or whatever is evolving into more of the same, all being directed by mercenary executives.

    Start by addressing the ridiculous the carriage fees and giving consumers more tier choices, and more recourse should streaming services up their fees.
    Online TV Confronts Rising Carriage Fees – Media Play News
     
  22. Jord

    Jord Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Netherlands
    The Wonder Woman 84 trailer debuted last night. Didn't blow me away but it I did find it amusing how the trailer ends with ONLY IN THEATRES in a large font to clear up any potential VOD confusion.
     
  23. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Sultan Of Snark

    Location:
    Central PA
    As a person who supports a local independent cinema every year, so they can make money selling popcorn to keep afloat...I hope Disney's gambit leaves them with egg on their faces.

    And I'm a stockholder.
     
    longdist01 likes this.
  24. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
  25. MikaelaArsenault

    MikaelaArsenault Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire

Share This Page