BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[Xenosmilus]

On 8/1/2021 at 8:35 PM, Bosco685 said:

I agree.

You should see this one forumite that created excessive MCU threads because he feels only that company does it right.

 

Nevermind

Blah I said they were both in the wrong!  I'm a contrarian by nature!

[Bosco685]

On 8/1/2021 at 8:39 PM, Xenosmilus said:

Blah I said they were both in the wrong!  I'm a contrarian by nature!

It is funny though recognizing your studio bias

[Xenosmilus]

On 8/1/2021 at 8:35 PM, fantastic_four said:

Mines not blind, it's based upon decades of tales of studios screwing actors out of income by lying about revenue and/or profits.  What I don't get is the support for Disney's point of view, and it's because I haven't heard anyone even try to defend it yet, just to complain about ScarJo or the movie in general.  Why WOULDN'T they include Disney Plus revenues in with box office receipts to compute actor compensation?  . Morally that's what makes sense, and since Disney hasn't explained either I'm left assuming they think they can skip it because of their interpretation of what the contract says.

Good question. I have no idea and when does it stop down the line?  Like I mentioned before the entertainment industry is the only industry I know of that pays out profit like they do.  Again, I am in the science field, if I invent something at work, guess what, the company owns it not me.  I don't see any money other than my salary and yearly bonus.  If every industry paid like the entertainment industry things would cost way too much.

[Bosco685]

On 8/1/2021 at 8:37 PM, D84 said:

Nope. I treat everyone the same. I'm an equal opportunity hole.

The Howard Stern clause is the middle ground: Equal opportunity offender!

 

[D84]

On 8/1/2021 at 7:45 PM, Bosco685 said:

The Howard Stern clause is the middle ground: Equal opportunity offender!

 

It's like Airplane! or South Park, go after everyone, so you aren't singling anyone out.

[drotto]

On 8/1/2021 at 8:35 PM, fantastic_four said:

Mines not blind, it's based upon decades of tales of studios screwing actors out of income by lying about revenue and/or profits.  What I don't get is the support for Disney's point of view, and it's because I haven't heard anyone even try to defend it yet, just to complain about ScarJo or the movie in general.  Why WOULDN'T they include Disney Plus revenues in with box office receipts to compute actor compensation?  . Rationally and morally that's what makes sense, and since Disney hasn't explained either I'm left assuming they think they can skip it because of their interpretation of what the contract says.

The wrinkle I have not seen mentioned here, (this is not support for either side) but it may have massive implications.  I saw it reported that Disney did give ScarJo a cut of the Disney + premium income. Apparently, what ScarJo is attempting to argue is she is entitled to a cut of Disney + profits as a whole. Her logic is that Disney dropping Black Widow on Disney + is driving subscriptions to the baseline service not just premier. So if her film, and by extension her star power is driving broader profits, she should get some of that.

 

This could have massive implications to all streaming services. At this point, talent gets no cut of subscription fees.  They may get a cut of the licensing fees and obviously what they got paid for the work. But streaming services do not currently provide residuals like syndication does on regular TV. Right now the streaming provider keeps all of the monthly fees. If ScarJo is successful, it may mean talent could claim a piece of those fees.  Basically for every say $8 monthly subscription, she would get 1 or 2 cents of that. So if that happens, who is entitled to some of that money?  With so much content available on some of these services is this even feasible? If they have to start sharing that money, what happens to fees to general customers? Can they afford to keep offering that much content? 

[Bosco685]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:57 PM, drotto said:

The wrinkle I have not seen mentioned here, (this is not support for either side) but it may have massive implications.  I saw it reported that Disney did give ScarJo a cut of the Disney + premium income. Apparently, what ScarJo is attempting to argue is she is entitled to a cut of Disney + profits as a whole. Her logic is that Disney dropping Black Widow on Disney + is driving subscriptions to the baseline service not just premier. So if her film, and by extension her star power is driving broader profits, she should get some of that.

 

This could have massive implications to all streaming services. At this point, talent gets no cut of subscription fees.  They may get a cut of the licensing fees and obviously what they got paid for the work. But streaming services do not currently provide residuals like syndication does on regular TV. Right now the streaming provider keeps all of the monthly fees. If ScarJo is successful, it may mean talent could claim a piece of those fees.  Basically for every say $8 monthly subscription, she would get 1 or 2 cents of that. So if that happens, who is entitled to some of that money?  With so much content available on some of these services is this even feasible? If they have to start sharing that money, what happens to fees to general customers? Can they afford to keep offering that much content? 

Yup. Mentioned this a few pages back with the Grace Randolph video as she outlines this quite nicely.

But it got lost in the force majeure clause discussions.

[Bosco685]

On 7/30/2021 at 4:42 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

[fantastic_four]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:57 PM, drotto said:

This could have massive implications to all streaming services. At this point, talent gets no cut of subscription fees.  They may get a cut of the licensing fees and obviously what they got paid for the work. But streaming services do not currently provide residuals like syndication does on regular TV. Right now the streaming provider keeps all of the monthly fees. If ScarJo is successful, it may mean talent could claim a piece of those fees.  Basically for every say $8 monthly subscription, she would get 1 or 2 cents of that.

Yea I was wondering how that would work also.  In a hypothetical world where actors get a cut of the release profits and a film is released in multiple venues subscriptions should factor into that, but not indefinitely, just for some limited number of subscriptions for a limited amount of time.  Just the ones that the film helped drive.  I don't know how to do that math, but given a few hours or days to think about it the math seems do-able, although I'm sure there are multiple ways to do the math that work out better for the actor versus the studio that are controversial.  And I have NO doubt the studios have already done that math and know to a very tight degree how much money a film helps drive streaming subscriptions.  Warner Brothers in particular must have a formula figured out extremely well to offer their films for "free" on HBO Max.

[Bosco685]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:19 AM, fantastic_four said:

Yea I was wondering how that would work also.  In a hypothetical world where actors get a cut of the release profits and a film is released in multiple venues subscriptions should factor into that, but not indefinitely, just for some limited number of subscriptions for a limited amount of time.  Just the ones that the film helped drive.  I don't know how to do that math, but given a few hours or days to think about it the math seems do-able, although I'm sure there are multiple ways to do the math that work out better for the actor versus the studio that are controversial.  And I have NO doubt the studios have already done that math and know to a very tight degree how much money a film helps drive streaming subscriptions.  Warner Brothers in particular must have a formula figured out extremely well to offer their films for "free" on HBO Max.

Heck, even with super-popular shows the case gets a cut of the syndication revenue. And many never even created the show like Seinfeld.

HOW MUCH THE CAST OF FRIENDS MAKES FROM RERUNS

Quote

When Friends first aired, each cast member was paid $22,500 per episode, according to MarketPlace. However, by the third season, Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer were reportedly making $100,000 per episode. By season nine, the cast had negotiated a salary of $1m each per episode, a deal that was, at the time, the largest-ever for a 30-minute television show.

 

During negotiations two years prior, it had been decided that the cast would receive syndication profits - a benefit that had previously only been offered to stars who had ownership rights in a show, according to The New York Times.

So I could see movie talent feeling slighted if their performances are being used to grow a new release path with streaming platforms. Especially since studios gain more profit going down this path versus theater box office.

[drotto]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:19 AM, fantastic_four said:

Yea I was wondering how that would work also.  In a hypothetical world where actors get a cut of the release profits and a film is released in multiple venues subscriptions should factor into that, but not indefinitely, just for some limited number of subscriptions for a limited amount of time.  Just the ones that the film helped drive.  I don't know how to do that math, but given a few hours or days to think about it the math seems do-able, although I'm sure there are multiple ways to do the math that work out better for the actor versus the studio that are controversial.  And I have NO doubt the studios have already done that math and know to a very tight degree how much money a film helps drive streaming subscriptions.  Warner Brothers in particular must have a formula figured out extremely well to offer their films for "free" on HBO Max.

It would force the streaming services to do a few things they have been very reluctant to do so far.  Release actual numbers of subscribers and subscriber gain/loss over a given period.  How many views for specific shows, episodes, and movies actually getting.  What actually constitutes a view.

 

I am not sure it is monetarily possible to give specific creative a slice of the sub pie forever.  They may be forced to do something for a limited time, or if there material is at a certain view threshold. For instance is 5 % of the logins then proceed to watch your material in a 1 week period you get x amount of bonus. But as currently structured, the traditional residual system for TV and movies is gone.

 

I still also think that the money coming into the entertainment  industry is going to go down.

[fantastic_four]

On 8/2/2021 at 8:05 AM, drotto said:

I am not sure it is monetarily possible to give specific creative a slice of the sub pie forever.  They may be forced to do something for a limited time, or if there material is at a certain view threshold. For instance is 5 % of the logins then proceed to watch your material in a 1 week period you get x amount of bonus. But as currently structured, the traditional residual system for TV and movies is gone.

It DEFINITELY wouldn't be forever.  The easiest math for Disney Plus that almost certainly needs much more refinement is to take some percentage of new subscriptions who watch the movie (maybe 30%, maybe 15%, not really sure) + some smaller percentage of existing subscriptions who watch the movie (probably half of the new subscriber percentage) for ONLY the time period the film is commanding that $30 premium.

I doubt any of that combined with the $30 streaming fee plus box office totals adds up to any $50 million bonus that Scarlett is suing for.  But who knows, RDJ was getting that kind of money, maybe they gave it to her for her solo film.  I'm guessing she just went overboard hoping for a lesser judgement.

Edited August 2, 2021 by fantastic_four

[drotto]

On 8/2/2021 at 8:15 AM, fantastic_four said:

It DEFINITELY wouldn't be forever.  The easiest math for Disney Plus that almost certainly needs much more refinement is to take some percentage of new subscriptions who watch the movie (maybe 30%, maybe 15%, not really sure) + some smaller percentage of existing subscriptions who watch the movie (probably half of the new subscriber percentage) for ONLY the time period the film is commanding that $30 premium.

I doubt any of that combined with the $30 streaming fee plus box office totals adds up to any $50 million bonus that Scarlett is suing for.  But who knows, RDJ was getting that kind of money, maybe they gave it to her for her solo film.  I'm guessing she just went overboard hoping for a lesser judgement.

Then you get what truly constitutes a new sub.  We already have a pattern where people will subscribe for 1 or 2 months.  Bing everything they want to see.  Cancel their sub.  Then resubscribe several months later when new content they want builds up again. So what are those customers truly coming back for?  

 

How do you calculate in subscriptions which are being given as part of phone plans, or other bundled services? Those people are not "paying" in the same sense.  As is stands, I currently have but do not pay for HBO Max.  It is just part of my phone plan. It has been suggested streaming services have been using these numbers to pad overall users for years.

 

 

[Bosco685]

On 8/2/2021 at 8:30 AM, drotto said:

Then you get what truly constitutes a new sub.  We already have a pattern where people will subscribe for 1 or 2 months.  Bing everything they want to see.  Cancel their sub.  Then resubscribe several months later when new content they want builds up again. So what are those customers truly coming back for?  

 

How do you calculate in subscriptions which are being given as part of phone plans, or other bundled services? Those people are not "paying" in the same sense.  As is stands, I currently have but do not pay for HBO Max.  It is just part of my phone plan. It has been suggested streaming services have been using these numbers to pad overall users for years.

Disney+ had a bunch of 2,000 reward point 6-month gift cards claimed to the point it had to cut this off. I was one of those that used my points as I didn't need their posters or movies.

Now it has released a 30-day gift card for 500 points. And it cannot be used for existing subscribers. Disney has been posting these for months.

[fantastic_four]

On 8/2/2021 at 8:30 AM, drotto said:

How do you calculate in subscriptions which are being given as part of phone plans, or other bundled services? Those people are not "paying" in the same sense.  As is stands, I currently have but do not pay for HBO Max.  It is just part of my phone plan. It has been suggested streaming services have been using these numbers to pad overall users for years.

Those seem hard to value, but what makes immediate sense is those count for zero.  If they pay the $30 for your movie then you get a cut of that, but 30% of a zero subscription cost is still zero, so that's what an actor would get.

Disney already knows the answer to ALL of these questions, they just didn't want to share any of it.  Why they didn't want to share it I'd love to hear, but I doubt we ever will and will just have to assume it's for the classic studio reason--they wanted to maximize their share of the pie.

[drotto]

On 8/2/2021 at 8:51 AM, fantastic_four said:

Those seem hard to value, but what makes immediate sense is those count for zero.  If they pay the $30 for your movie then you get a cut of that, but 30% of a zero subscription cost is still zero, so that's what an actor would get.

Disney already knows the answer to ALL of these questions, they just didn't want to share any of it.  Why they didn't want to share it I'd love to hear, but I doubt we ever will and will just have to assume it's for the classic studio reason--they wanted to maximize their share of the pie.

Not releasing these numbers allows them to control the narrative.   They get to say when a show is successful, and the public without numbers, can't challenge that.  This extends to dealing with shareholders and investors.  The streaming service gets to say, yes spending that money made sense, because it made you money.   Again without hard numbers, how can anyone challenge this assertion. 

 

It also serves to hid any weakness from the competition. They can claim they have the most viewed and profitable content. With no numbers, who can challenge that.

 

The only possibly reliable metric we are left with is renewals.  If it gets another season it probably made money.  Unfortunately, with the scrutiny that big franchises are under, I kinda doubt this at times also.  As an example only, if the numbers were terrible for a Star Wars, or MCU show,  would Disney perhaps grant a second season to cover up weakness, especially with their most important IP's?

[fantastic_four]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:16 AM, drotto said:

Not releasing these numbers allows them to control the narrative.   They get to say when a show is successful, and the public without numbers, can't challenge that.  This extends to dealing with shareholders and investors.  The streaming service gets to say, yes spending that money made sense, because it made you money.   Again without hard numbers, how can anyone challenge this assertion. 

 

It also serves to hid any weakness from the competition. They can claim they have the most viewed and profitable content. With no numbers, who can challenge that.

 

The only possibly reliable metric we are left with is renewals.  If it gets another season it probably made money.  Unfortunately, with the scrutiny that big franchises are under, I kinda doubt this at times also.  As an example only, if the numbers were terrible for a Star Wars, or MCU show,  would Disney perhaps grant a second season to cover up weakness, especially with their most important IP's?

I also doubt any of them share streaming stats publicly anytime soon, but they wouldn't have to share them publicly to compensate actors--just with the actors who negotiate profit sharing.  But I assume none of them are doing even that.  The fact that Warner gave Gal Godot a flat bonus to compensate for box office revenue lost to the HBO Max release of WW84 suggests they didn't want to share streaming statistics with her, either.

Edited August 2, 2021 by fantastic_four

[Gatsby77]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:16 AM, drotto said:

Not releasing these numbers allows them to control the narrative.   They get to say when a show is successful, and the public without numbers, can't challenge that.  This extends to dealing with shareholders and investors.  The streaming service gets to say, yes spending that money made sense, because it made you money.   Again without hard numbers, how can anyone challenge this assertion. 

 

It also serves to hid any weakness from the competition. They can claim they have the most viewed and profitable content. With no numbers, who can challenge that.

 

The only possibly reliable metric we are left with is renewals.  If it gets another season it probably made money.  Unfortunately, with the scrutiny that big franchises are under, I kinda doubt this at times also.  As an example only, if the numbers were terrible for a Star Wars, or MCU show,  would Disney perhaps grant a second season to cover up weakness, especially with their most important IP's?

I think this will change - and eventually all the streaming services will have to release their numbers for transparency's sake.

We're at the same inflection point we were several years ago when Nielsen became (temporarily) obsolete with the advent of streaming services.

And, as others have noted - going forward all major actor/director/producer contracts will have streaming revenue accounted for in their compensation deals.

Mark Wahlberg has also threatened legal action over Infinite going directly to Paramount+ rather than a theatrical release.

That said, I don't understand the accounting - what's the projected ROI for Netflix of spending $100+ million or $150+ million on a movie like Bright or 6 Underground?

What's the ROI on Amazon supposedly spending $1 billion+ on 5 seasons of Lord of the Rings? That's a *lot* of additional Prime memberships...

[D84]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:16 AM, Gatsby77 said:

That said, I don't understand the accounting - what's the projected ROI for Netflix of spending $100+ million or $150+ million on a movie like Bright or 6 Underground?

What's the ROI on Amazon supposedly spending $1 billion+ on 5 seasons of Lord of the Rings? That's a *lot* of additional Prime memberships...

A friend of mine who was a producer in 80s/90s told me, you always quote the budget as higher than it really was for bragging rights. For example, your movie costs 2 million, you say it was 8.

[Bosco685]

On 8/2/2021 at 10:35 AM, D84 said:

A friend of mine who was a producer in 80s/90s told me, you always quote the budget as higher than it really was for bragging rights. For example, your movie costs 2 million, you say it was 8.

I had posted an article about his Hollywood practice a while back. Including how talent will negotiate to publicize they were paid more than they were for future production negotiation purposes.

 

National Public Radio did a spot on this practice as well with talent pay.

We See Angelina's Bottom Line