BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[kimik]

46 minutes ago, piper said:

I’m going a 2nd time tonight with @Artboy99, @thehumantorch, and @kimik.

 

So if we walk out of the theatre and all view it as a dud, is it okay for us to ask why you did not warn us to see something else? 

[Gatsby77]

41 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

No. What I have provided is fact, and very clear Black Widow experienced a substantial domestic box office drop-off.

You are assuming this is the new normal. Aren't you?

You keep hammering on the steep day-to-day drop-off as if it was the headline - or somehow *magically would have been the headline* if Disney hadn't released their purported streaming numbers - that they did so primarily to save face on the assumption $80M domestic is somehow "disappointing." '

I disagree - I think the headline still would have been "best opening weekend in two years." Full stop.

Yes - it's a fact that it was steeply front-loaded -- but it's not necessarily related to why they release the streaming numbers.

What makes the streaming numbers story-worthy is that Disney likely made more profit from it alone than from the entire first weekend domestic gross.

I think this will be the new normal...but again, we'll know a lot more when Jungle Cruise comes out in two weeks.

And yes - I know Warner Bros. has already announced a return to an exclusive 45-day theatrical window beginning in 2022.

Still hard to ignore the money left on the table from a potential additional $50-$100 million opening weekend in streaming revenue for their biggest releases if they simply followed in Disney's footsteps and started charging a similar premium for early access.

[D84]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

No. What I have provided is fact, and very clear Black Widow experienced a substantial domestic box office drop-off.

"They've not filled in the streaming revenue numbers yet (presumably because they've not validated them) but this points to their belief, at least, that this could be the new normal, not a one-off attempt to "control the narrative."

And there is the confirmation you are assuming this is the new normal when what took place for now is Disney controlled the narrative by countering the drop-off message. You are assuming this is the new normal. Aren't you?

That's not a fair comparison. Wonder Woman was a good movie.

Edited July 14, 2021 by D84

[piper]

59 minutes ago, kimik said:

So if we walk out of the theatre and all view it as a dud, is it okay for us to ask why you did not warn us to see something else? 

I liked it. It’s not Citizen Kane.

[kimik]

53 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

You keep hammering on the steep day-to-day drop-off as if it was the headline - or somehow *magically would have been the headline* if Disney hadn't released their purported streaming numbers - that they did so primarily to save face on the assumption $80M domestic is somehow "disappointing." '

I disagree - I think the headline still would have been "best opening weekend in two years." Full stop.

Yes - it's a fact that it was steeply front-loaded -- but it's not necessarily related to why they release the streaming numbers.

What makes the streaming numbers story-worthy is that Disney likely made more profit from it alone than from the entire first weekend domestic gross.

I think this will be the new normal...but again, we'll know a lot more when Jungle Cruise comes out in two weeks.

And yes - I know Warner Bros. has already announced a return to an exclusive 45-day theatrical window beginning in 2022.

Still hard to ignore the money left on the table from a potential additional $50-$100 million opening weekend in streaming revenue for their biggest releases if they simply followed in Disney's footsteps and started charging a similar premium for early access.

Agreed. I think WB is making a mistake by not releasing films via streaming on the same day as the theatrical release. Aside from the profitability, streaming on a device on their time where they want to consume media is the way that viewers will shift to in the future. I look at my teenage kids - they rarely went to the theatre before COVID with their friends as they preferred to be at someone's place instead so they could talk while watching a movie/TV show.

In addition, according to Google, with ticket prices hitting $15 in the USA (the VIP theatre is $20+sales tax for us today here in Edmonton), it is cheaper for a household of three or more to just stream it instead of going to the theatre. Add in the cost of drinks and popcorn/treats/food, and it is an even better deal. 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by kimik

[kimik]

27 minutes ago, piper said:

I liked it. It’s not Citizen Kane.

I am just hoping it is an average Marvel film. 

And not being Citizen Kane is a good thing since that film is overrated IMHO...................

Edited July 14, 2021 by kimik

[Gatsby77]

10 minutes ago, kimik said:

 Aside from the profitability, streaming on a device on their time where they want to consume media is the way that viewers will consume media in the future. I look at my teenage kids - they rarely went to the theatre before COVID with their friends as they preferred to be at someone's place instead so they could talk while watching a movie/TV show.

This too.

There are a huge number of households in the U.S. whose primary TV is now 65" or larger - and with a sound bar.

So the relative spectacle of going to see a blockbuster in a theater isn't the draw it was even 10 years ago.

[kimik]

8 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This too.

There are a huge number of households in the U.S. whose primary TV is now 65" or larger - and with a sound bar.

So the relative spectacle of going to see a blockbuster in a theater isn't the draw it was even 10 years ago.

That is my basement set up. No need to go to a theatre now unless it is a movie that the special effects are going to be noticeably better on the big screen/3D.

[chrisco37]

3 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Although subscribers get to keep the movie as long as they are enrolled, the average household most probably pays this knowing later on it is going to be free. They are doing it to treat themselves to a new movie event. With that type outlook, I doubt they care at that point if they own it or not. Averaging out theater ticket purchases to this, and a solid system to watch it, it is quite cost-effective for a group.

All I have is the television (no sound system of any kind) and I paid the $30 to see it.  Costs less for my family than going to the theater, I can pause the movie for the bathroom if I need to, don’t overpay for a giant bag of popcorn that gets half-eaten or a jumbo drink that doesn’t get finishes.  It’s more convenient for me.  While going to the theater is alright, it’s not the experience for me as it is to some.  I couldn’t care less about 3D or IMAX.  I’m going to see the movie, not to be in a theater.  I love these streaming releases.  

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Spoiler

 

You keep hammering on the steep day-to-day drop-off as if it was the headline - or somehow *magically would have been the headline* if Disney hadn't released their purported streaming numbers - that they did so primarily to save face on the assumption $80M domestic is somehow "disappointing." '

I disagree - I think the headline still would have been "best opening weekend in two years." Full stop.

Yes - it's a fact that it was steeply front-loaded -- but it's not necessarily related to why they release the streaming numbers.

What makes the streaming numbers story-worthy is that Disney likely made more profit from it alone than from the entire first weekend domestic gross.

 

I think this will be the new normal...but again, we'll know a lot more when Jungle Cruise comes out in two weeks.

Spoiler

 

And yes - I know Warner Bros. has already announced a return to an exclusive 45-day theatrical window beginning in 2022.

Still hard to ignore the money left on the table from a potential additional $50-$100 million opening weekend in streaming revenue for their biggest releases if they simply followed in Disney's footsteps and started charging a similar premium for early access.

 

 

But you missed the point. Your assumption doesn't make someone else's assumption less valid because you say so. Though that significant drop and Disney's uncommon actions tells a clear story.

I do agree though Disney doing this more than once will show if there is a new trend.

[Bosco685]

10 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

All I have is the television (no sound system of any kind) and I paid the $30 to see it.  Costs less for my family than going to the theater, I can pause the movie for the bathroom if I need to, don’t overpay for a giant bag of popcorn that gets half-eaten or a jumbo drink that doesn’t get finishes.  It’s more convenient for me.  While going to the theater is alright, it’s not the experience for me as it is to some.  I couldn’t care less about 3D or IMAX.  I’m going to see the movie, not to be in a theater.  I love these streaming releases.  

I think this is more of the norm going forward. Comfort of our homes and for a small amount the entire family and friends can be there to watch it.

Just make sure to charge them for the drinks. 

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, kimik said:

Agreed. I think WB is making a mistake by not releasing films via streaming on the same day as the theatrical release. Aside from the profitability, streaming on a device on their time where they want to consume media is the way that viewers will shift to in the future. I look at my teenage kids - they rarely went to the theatre before COVID with their friends as they preferred to be at someone's place instead so they could talk while watching a movie/TV show.

In addition, according to Google, with ticket prices hitting $15 in the USA (the VIP theatre is $20+sales tax for us today here in Edmonton), it is cheaper for a household of three or more to just stream it instead of going to the theatre. Add in the cost of drinks and popcorn/treats/food, and it is an even better deal. 

 

WB is already doing a hybrid release schedule. It was Disney that was holding out for the longest time with many of its movies in the hopes the theaters would finally return to normal.

Warner Bros. Pictures Group Announces Innovative, Hybrid Distribution Model For Its 2021 Theatrical Slate

WB Studios may be a hot mess how it handles its own properties. But on this it was the right decision during an unprecedented modern pandemic. But also thinking of people that also lost their jobs, or were severely impacted financially. Yet still signed up for their streaming service.

Disney on the other hand always went for the additional fee. Business-wise, it makes sense. As a decent human being taking the pandemic impact into consideration, not so much. Yet a dysfunctional company like WB did. That's nuts.

[Larryw7]

3 hours ago, piper said:

I liked it. It’s not Citizen Kane.

Is it at least as good as The Bowery Boys in Baghdad?

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

WB is already doing a hybrid release schedule. It was Disney that was holding out for the longest time with many of its movies in the hopes the theaters would finally return to normal.

Warner Bros. Pictures Group Announces Innovative, Hybrid Distribution Model For Its 2021 Theatrical Slate

WB Studios may be a hot mess how it handles its own properties. But on this it was the right decision during an unprecedented modern pandemic. But also thinking of people that also lost their jobs, or were severely impacted financially. Yet still signed up for their streaming service.

Disney on the other hand always went for the additional fee. Business-wise, it makes sense. As a decent human being taking the pandemic impact into consideration, not so much. Yet a dysfunctional company like WB did. That's nuts.

I get the altruism angle but don’t be totally naive here either.

Warner Bros. needed the allure of free day-and-date high profile releases - at least this year - to build an initial subscriber base for HBO Max.

This is *certainly* true for Wonder Woman 84, and arguably true for the Snyder Cut as well.

HBO Max debuted 6 months behind Disney+ in a world where Netflix, Prime & Hulu were already dominant. 

There’s only so many $10-$15 / month streaming services your average family’s going to be willing or able to pay for.

[drotto]

6 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

As somebody a couple pages back pointed out, when you pay the $30 on Disney plus, you own the movie forever, so for all we know, that "60 million" also represents a huge chunk of what would have been home video sales at a later date, thus making the movie even more front-loaded.

-J.

I think it was me that brought this up. What the $30 buys you is exclusive access for 2 months.  At that point apparently it will be pulled for one month, and then will be brought back as a normal service film.

 

Yes, I think this type of model will make streaming VERY front loaded, even more than movies have become the last few years.

 

It also means that 1 billion plus films are DEAD, at least for now. So how does that trickle down to the rest of the industry?  Can they keep spending $250 to $300 million to make these properties?  If they spend that much on one film, does it mean we get less content overall?  The current economics of the movie industry will likely become unsustainable.

[paperheart]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

I get the altruism angle but don’t be totally naive here either.

Warner Bros. needed the allure of free day-and-date high profile releases - at least this year - to build an initial subscriber base for HBO Max.

This is *certainly* true for Wonder Woman 84, and arguably true for the Snyder Cut as well.

HBO Max debuted 6 months behind Disney+ in a world where Netflix, Prime & Hulu were already dominant. 

There’s only so many $10-$15 / month streaming services your average family’s going to be willing or able to pay for.

little known fact: WB gave away 1/2 Joker profits for $20 million for altruistic purposes

[▫️]

I will just echo the comments in the thread stating it’s much better than Captain Marvel and WW84. I would never watch either of those a second time but I can watch Black Widow again despite some major missed opportunities.

[Artboy99]

14 minutes ago, Oddball said:

I will just echo the comments in the thread stating it’s much better than Captain Marvel and WW84. I would never watch either of those a second time but I can watch Black Widow again despite some major missed opportunities.

I have actually watched Captain Marvel a few times. I didn't hate the film. I will never watch WW84 ever again, awful movie.

Just got back from seeing Black Widow, entertaining film. I really liked the Taskmaster, that it was a she didn't bother me. Average Marvel movie.

[kimik]

1 hour ago, Artboy99 said:

I have actually watched Captain Marvel a few times. I didn't hate the film. I will never watch WW84 ever again, awful movie.

Just got back from seeing Black Widow, entertaining film. I really liked the Taskmaster, that it was a she didn't bother me. Average Marvel movie.

Yeah, not great, but not totally terrible. It was too long for what they had to work with. There were a couple of people that dozed off in the theatre, and it was not full.

Red Guardian was awesome - they need to work him into future MCU films or at least D+.

Edited July 15, 2021 by kimik

[Bosco685]

6 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

I get the altruism angle but don’t be totally naive here either.

Warner Bros. needed the allure of free day-and-date high profile releases - at least this year - to build an initial subscriber base for HBO Max.

This is *certainly* true for Wonder Woman 84, and arguably true for the Snyder Cut as well.

HBO Max debuted 6 months behind Disney+ in a world where Netflix, Prime & Hulu were already dominant. 

There’s only so many $10-$15 / month streaming services your average family’s going to be willing or able to pay for.

To recap:

• HBO Max did this to grow its base: Yup
• Disney kept moving movies for profit reasons: Yup
• Theater owners suffered due to pandemic: Yup
• WW84 was a letdown: Yup
• HBO Max didn't charge an initial viewing fee: Yup
• Disney+ distributed worldwide much smarter: Yup

Meanwhile, extensively messy WarnerMedia/HBO Max recognized the pandemic was continuing to have an extended impact on worldwide theaters. So it pulled the band-aid off and went with a hybrid release schedule. Which also accounted for reduced income subscribers when you consider the ad-based reduced fee offering. Along with continuing to hold off on an initial release fee (which will probably change over time).

'Too many streaming services' and at what stage in the streaming industry lifecycle HBO Max went live has no relevance to the fact Black Widow experienced an unusual domestic drop-off leading to Disney revealing its streaming rental/purchase revenue results for the first time across the industry.