Dismiss Notice
We are making some updates and reconfigurations to our server. Apologies for any downtime or slow forum loading now or within the next week or so. Thanks!

Wonder Woman 1984 - June 5/2020

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Deuce66, Dec 8, 2019.

  1. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    Since I’m no longer in the cuddling up with my date in the dark to watch a crappy movie in a dingy theater phase of my life, my wife and I do enjoy cuddling up together on the couch at home to watch The Queen’s Gambit on Netflix.

    Criticizing a company for taking the long view over “first day profit” strikes me as a bit odd. While there’s all sorts of trash on Netflix, as there has been on every network ever, they have also produced more than enough quality original programming that they would be the last streaming service I would ever cancel, contrary to your assertion that “they’re one cancellation click away from oblivion.” Using their billions to build up a library of original shows that people enjoy watching strikes me as a good long term strategy.

    Of all of the streaming services, I would guess that Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon (safe from the vagaries of the market, as it’s basically a loss leader for the company’s Prime service) are the safest bets to still exist in 2040.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020
    Shawn likes this.
  2. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    Agree. Sending Wonder Woman 84 straight to streaming (with theatrical screenings for those who care to risk it) strikes me as a rational response to make the best of a bad situation. Pushing the old school theatrical premiere back to 2022 was doubtless deemed an even worse option.
     
    Shawn likes this.
  3. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I'm guessing here, could they use a formula based on the total # of minutes subscribers spent streaming (insert show here) divided by the total # of subscriber minutes for the reporting period in question? then allocate subscriber revenue to show in order to get a general idea of profitability or loss?
     
  4. P(orF)

    P(orF) Forum Resident

    Might want to reread... there was no criticism in my comments. As Oatsdad correctly replied, the economics of the streaming model, especially as related to the thread topic, are a mystery. HBO says they are okay with the streaming service losing money until 2025, so there’s plenty of time to figure it out.
    As to the “one cancellation click” comment, it’s simply the nature of the product. These services have to keep serving up a steady stream of expensive new programming and with more and more competitors crowding the market, it’s likely to end up with some massive losses for some of these companies. (Like Apple, maybe, whose streaming channel has been very disappointing.) It will be interesting to see the retention figures in a post-COVID universe.
     
    Oatsdad likes this.
  5. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    Amazon lost money on paper for years to invest in the future.

    Why is Disney valuable? Because of its huge library of popular TV shows and movies built up over decades. As you note, Netflix and other streaming services have to create new programming to keep subscribers. And 20 years from now, the kids of tomorrow will likely want to watch Stranger Things, so that investment in programming doesn’t just pay off now, it pays off in the future.

    Maybe you’re right, maybe the whole world will cancel Netflix next year. Maybe some new technological innovation will eventually force it out of business just as it is forcing cable TV out of business. But, like Xerox and Kleenex before it, its very brand name has entered into the language as shorthand for what it does: “Netflix and chill” has simply become the new way to say “watching TV.” That’s a pretty powerful penetration of the public consciousness, one I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

    As for Apple TV+, given that they’re starting from scratch, I think they’ve done OK. I’ve watched and enjoyed For All Mankind, The Morning Show, Tehran, and several other Apple TV+ shows. And, like Amazon, Apple has the deep pockets to play the long game.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  6. P(orF)

    P(orF) Forum Resident

    It would be fun to see the actual numbers... let’s say Disney, for instance, has a revenue projection that shows average new subscribers per month minus average cancellations per month. Then they throw a Hamilton or Milan out there and watch the new subscribers spike up after which they look very closely at the following month’s cancellations to see how a big budget special affects the retention rates. It’s probably easier for Disney because, to the best of my knowledge, they’re the only one without a free trial.
     
  7. P(orF)

    P(orF) Forum Resident

    I don’t think Netflix will go anywhere. Nor will Disney or Amazon. But there have to be some casualties along the way... I just don’t think people will pay for more than two or three streaming services.

    Apple certainly has the money to go on indefinitely, and I enjoyed several of their shows, too, but they don’t appear to be inclined to buy existing product, so their few originals have left them trailing the pack. (Really looking forward to more Morning Show and Servant, though.)
     
  8. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    I agree. There will be casualties along the way. Live theatre and bowling leagues were a casualty of broadcast TV. Broadcast TV was a casualty of cable TV. Cable TV is now a casualty of streaming. And so it goes.

    Apple TV+ bought the Tom Hanks Greyhound movie, and has reportedly bid on other new Hollywood films shelved from theatrical screenings by the pandemic. They recently bought the rights to the animated Peanuts holiday specials. The other night, we watched the new Sofia Coppola film, On the Rocks, on Apple TV+. Which is part of their production deal with A24, the same studio that made Moonlight. We also watched the British show Trying, which I believe Apple bought from the BBC or some other UK network. So I don’t think the notion that “they’re not inclined to buy anything” is accurate. Plus, they keep on making their own shows like Dickinson, another show we really liked. Like Amazon, Apple can afford to play the long game. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
     
    sunspot42 and P(orF) like this.
  9. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I get that studios have always funded "prestige projects" that seemed unlikely to inspire the masses... but the vast majority of these have been relatively inexpensive.

    "Roma" was $15 million - not a big expense.

    On the other hand, "Irishman" cost mega-blockbuster money. I understand that Netflix wants to push their viability as an Oscar-worthy studio, but they probably could do so without projects that cost $200 million! :eek:

    I just find it really tough to imagine Netflix "got back" that money in any way. I think they basically just lit cigars on fire there because they had $$$ they could burn without fear of monetary losses...
     
  10. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Probably. I did well in statistics when I got my psych degree, but I don't know nuttin' about Hollywood bean-counting! :D

    As I said in my last post, I have to believe Netflix knew that "Irishman" would never formally recoup its massive budget - or come close - but they just decided the "prestige" was worth it in the long run for non-monetary reasons.

    They already had enough critical juice to attract "prestige filmmakers" without tossing $200 million at Marty so he could CG De Niro, Pesci and Pacino to death.

    If they were more fledgling, I'd get it. For example, back when the Washington Nationals were terrible, they overpaid for free agent Jason Werth.

    They had to because they were so awful that no good player would come to them without silly money.

    Signing Werth didn't help their win-loss record in the short term, but it made them look credible to other free agents, so the Nats needed to overpay just to get into the free agent game.

    If Netflix was new and needed to overpay Marty to make themselves look like a viable place for other noted filmmakers... sure.

    But "Roma" already did that. Giving Marty $200m just felt like "eff you" money...
     
  11. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    Apple could afford to subsidize a money-losing studio essentially forever and really not even notice the drain.
     
  12. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Forum Resident

    Location:
    detroit, mi
    Glad to hear WW is finally going to be available.

    Hoping to see it in the theater if possible.

    If not I already have HBO-max.
     
    Veronica Mars likes this.
  13. 5th-beatle

    5th-beatle Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brazil
  14. Quadboy

    Quadboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Leeds,England
    Just saw a UK TV advert saying it will be in cinemas from 16th Dec.
    Much better than the stupid idea of Xmas day ....... even cinema staff deserve that day off.
    It would be a good idea just to have the VOD stream on Xmas day for family viewing.
    It used to be a highlight of BBC Tv a big film premier in the late afternoon followed by Xmas specials of favourite comedy related shows in the evening.
    Today's Xmas day TV schedule just doesn't cut it.
     
    PH416156 likes this.
  15. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Do they shut down movie theaters in the UK on Christmas Day?

    Even if there are no new releases on 12/25, US theaters are at standard capacity that day...
     
  16. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident Thread Starter

  17. Disney also benefits in a key way that Netflix can’t - building marketing momentum from its streaming services to ‘real world’ things like visits to its theme parks and driving merchandise sales (just look at what Baby Yoda is bringing in from t-shirt, ornament, toy, etc. sales).
     
    P(orF) likes this.
  18. Quadboy

    Quadboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Leeds,England
    I really don't know? I've never been tempted to go on that particular day.
    But it would seem draconian to me to have/or make staff work instead of being with family.
     
  19. Mirrorblade.1

    Mirrorblade.1 Forum Resident

    2025 to make a profit... that is sure is bad math..
    HBO max is entering netflix terrority of what if's and hopefully..
     
  20. Quadboy

    Quadboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Leeds,England
    So no theories as to how Chris Pine/Steve Trevor manages to still be alive and roughly the same ago nearly 70 years later?
     
  21. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    A lot of people are happy to work on holidays, especially because sometimes they get paid more.

    And of course, not everyone observes Xmas, so plenty of people don't care about the "be with family" side.

    Anyway, movie theaters are always open on 12/25 in the US, and I suspect that's true in the UK as well...
     
  22. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I see AMC will bring back the 2017 "Wonder Woman" to IMAX screens starting Friday.

    Though I hate to see movies theatrically that I own, I might go to this as "prep" for "WW1984"! :)
     
    PH416156 likes this.
  23. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    It's a comic book movie so I'm sure it'll be something silly.
     
  24. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe 3 months since last false death report!

    We have our A*List tickets for both already.

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Veronica Mars

    Veronica Mars Forum Resident

    Location:
    California
    Xmas Day movies are a U.S. Thing.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine