Yes, but a 5 million dollar movie like Get Out can still make near 200 million. Certainly, a lot of small movies deserve straight to streaming, but not all.
Yeah, and the studios aren’t really getting blockbusters right either. Alita is a good example. It’s really more limited in appeal than a Marvel or even DC movie so why did they spend as much or even more on it as someone would on one of those movies with a built in audience? These risks are not paying off. I hope Dune and the next Bond movie do well, but no one should be surprised if they perform like Blade Runner 2049. Not every director can be or should be the next Christopher Nolan.
By those odds one in seven hundred.
There will always be chancers and I wish them all the luck. As far as the subject at hand though, if I were a production company or mid level actor I’d be on that Netflix tit like a teenage boy. Millar signing with Netflix was the thing that all the comic guys should have been doing. Loads of them have 1 or 2 of their own properties in development, Mark will have 20. And Mark got P-A-I-D!
I’ll give it the Kevin Spacy, he saw what Netflix was and jumped early. Smart guy. Stupid penis though.
Horror is a different beast and is almost an outlier to the discussion. If you have a horror film in wide release you’re basically guaranteed a profit and oftentimes a massive one.
Horror is a cheap beast too, mostly. Unless you turn it into an action movie and cast Tom Cruise.
I think Soderbergh is specifically looking for some flexibility. What works for one film wont work for others.
There’s still a variety of release strategies out there, from the huge 4000 cinema release to platforming, starting with a couple of carefully chosen screens and then expanding if they’re popular. These are approaches (although the scale has changed) that have been around since the 1930’s and they’re still used.
Theatrical exhibition of motion pictures has never stood still, there’s been a constant development in technology and in release strategies, but that doesn’t mean it’s been a smooth process.
Some people will definitely prefer to stay home, whatever the movie, but a lot of people want a night out. “Dinner and a movie” is going to remain something that is a popular choice, even with the increased popularity of streaming.
But getting back to Soderbergh’s point; I agree with him that keeping movies in cinemas when audiences haven’t chosen to see them there, isn’t sustainable.
Being able to try a film for a week and then either extend it’s run or cut it short, will make booking screens and planning releases more complicated, but it will become more common, by necessity.
The audience will either get used to that, or not, but I think what he’s describing is a version of what will inevitably happen.
Sometimes I love you dearly, Hank! Yeah, there’s a specific genre. I’m lucky to count Mike Moorcock among my friends, and all one needs to do is google “Moorcock and Bastable” and get a bunch of proto-steampunk! Airships and monocles!
Very technical, but interesting.
Like WarnerMedia and NBCU, Disney hasn’t unveiled pricing or a launch date for its service, though it has a name, Disney+. Richard Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG, estimates it will debut Oct. 1 at $7 monthly and will sign up 2 million subscribers by year’s end. But he figures Disney needs about 7 million customers just to make up for the roughly $500 million it won’t be getting each year by licensing content to Netflix. “It continues to boggle our mind that Disney wants to compete with Netflix versus remaining an arms dealer to whoever will pay the most for their content,” he says.
There’s also some expensive marketing to be done, as 50 percent of American adults have little or no clue that Disney+ is on the horizon and even more are similarly unfamiliar with WarnerMedia’s (55 percent) and NBCU’s (53 percent) upcoming streaming products, a recent Hollywood Reporter /Morning Consult poll found. In contrast, just 17 percent haven’t heard of Netflix, which already has 58.5 million streaming customers in the U.S.
That gross makes it the biggest film of the year so far.
“Wandering Earth” surpassed “Avengers: Infinity War” on Saturday to become the highest-grossing Imax release ever in China. After adding $7.2 million from 603 Imax screens over the four-day weekend, the Imax cumulative for the film now stands at $43.7 million in China, and $44.7 million globally.
I can see why, since the movie actually looks good.
I’m impressed by the production values. There is spectacle to spare.
Is there an international release planned? I’d see it.
Apparently it’s already been released in the US and Australia, but I can’t see any news for the UK. I’m sure that we’ll get some sort of a release at some point.
Following up on the long running lawsuit alleging that Fox wasn’t paying the stars and creators of ‘Bones’ the share of the profits that was in their contracts;
Fox Rocked by $179M ‘Bones’ Ruling: Lying, Cheating and “Reprehensible” Studio Fraud
The decision, made earlier this month but until now a secret, pertains to the Fox-produced series Bones, which starred David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel and ran on the Fox network between 2005 and 2017. But the 66-page ruling by arbitrator Peter Lichtman, who concludes Fox executives lied, cheated and committed fraud at the expense of the show’s stars and executive producer Barry Josephson, is about a whole lot more. The nearly $200 million award amounts to the second-largest in television industry history, after a 2011 jury verdict punishing Disney to the tune of $319 million over profit-sharing for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It will not only put Murdoch’s Fox sale in a whole new light, but may also raise questions about the future viability of Hulu, plus any platform enjoying what’s pejoratively known as “Hollywood accounting.” The ruling also comes as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed to stand another mega-merger between AT&T and Time Warner, an example of vertical integration between a distributor of content and a producer.
In coming to a decision, Lichtman describes how some of Fox’s top executives, including 21st Century Fox president Peter Rice and Fox TV CEO Dana Walden (soon to be top executives at Disney) plus Fox TV chairman Gary Newman (leaving Fox) “appear to have given false testimony in an attempt to conceal their wrongful acts.” According to the ruling, Fox has taken a “cavalier attitude toward its wrongdoing" and exhibits a "company-wide culture and an accepted climate that enveloped an aversion for the truth."
"Peter Rice and Dana Walden are highly respected leaders in this industry, and we have complete confidence in their character and integrity," said Bob Iger, chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, in a statement on Wednesday. "Disney had no involvement in the arbitration, and we understand the decision is being challenged and will leave it to the courts to decide the matter."
Slamming the company with a punishment that includes $128 million in punitive damages, or five times the amount of compensatory damages, Lichtman points out that the award is 0.6 percent of 21st Century Fox’s stipulated net worth.
He muses whether it’s really enough.
“In fact, one could question whether a five to one ratio given Fox’s financial condition and lack of contrition serves to deter the wrongful conduct at issue here, or whether it will be considered part of the cost of doing business,” writes the arbitrator.
Fox are challenging to ruling of course, so it’s not over yet.
My industry is still dysfunctional;
This affects people I know.
Right now their chances of getting any money are close to zero. The film company paid the VFX company, but the VFX company didn’t pay the workers, and now it’s declared bankruptcy.
Crazy, I thought the film was rubbish, apart from the acting performances and the amazing VFX to perfectly recreate Wembley in 1985. Then the latter don’t get paid.
It’s crazy that this part of the movie industry has spun into a place where people not being properly paid is such a regular thing.
Bectu says the plight of the out-of-pocket workers highlights the need for a new industry code of practice to protect freelance workers when businesses go into administration.
What do you think could happen to change the situation for the better, Steve?
It’s huge. The whole film industry is weird in how it works. There’s no simple answer.
It is specifically film as well, TV has it’s problems, but it’s a lot more stable and firms which do more TV work benefit from that stability.
It’s my opinion that most VFX businesses (like many other film companies) aren’t run as businesses.
A lot of these problems come from businesses that take on jobs that don’t pay well enough. Over time, too many of those jobs erode the ability of the company to survive when some additional problem hits. It’s living pay cheque to pay cheque on a larger scale.
Companies go out of business from time to time, that’s not unusual. The reason Halo’s collapse has been a headline is that they kept trading when they didn’t have the money coming in. They kept running, stringing people along, hoping that another job would bail them out.
There’s a lot of talk about why some jobs pay so low? The big issue is tax breaks, which mean that Company A can offer a lower rate than Company B because they get government support. So Company B either makes a lot less money on a job, or passes on it completely.
But the UK has a strong subsidy system and we’re still seeing companies like Halo fail periodically.
Halo didn’t fail because of subsidies, it failed because the management kept trading despite the ever dropping bank balance. They should’ve been realistic and said it was time to close, or at least to downsize (as painful as that can be).
So what can be done? More transparency about how a business is actually doing would be good, but very unlikely. No-one wants to admit when times are tough, it erodes confidence.
Having a section of the company’s money ring fenced for salaries, which I know is discussed, but it needs legislation, as will better government systems to pay at least a portion of lost income (there is some protection, but not enough yet).
Stray box office observation but part of me thinks that even in a year with Endgame and Star Wars, that Frozen movie is going to be the biggest movie of the year. People are still freaking out about that trailer, and I bet scores of people are going to see that movie 3-5 times.
Following up on the Halo VFX story, and the money owed to workers;
Short version, they expanded for a job that then didn’t come through, and from that point on they were just trying to fill the money gap it created.
They make the point that they were putting money into the firm, not taking it out, and I believe them, but it still shows that they were running on hope not business sense.
And they stopped paying people. That happened. They bet their employees’ salaries on keeping the company going without informing those employees.
I admit, I had that “ooooooh” soaring sensation in my chest when I saw the teaser.