News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[Tha Realest]

Glass Onion is an original film for a streaming platform with a streaming platform budget. On a lark, they dumped it into theaters for a week and hangers-on to the good old days were dumb enough to pay $12 to watch it.

Disney's doing the same, they're just spending too much. Iger is going to adjust this, just watch.

BTW, Disney's Stagecraft (developed by ILM) tech was a MAJOR leap forward in reducing production costs and will be a game-changer in making streaming profitable.

I agree Stagecraft is helping with making cheaper films. But, because of the diminished prospect of future royalties, a lot of these productions are more expensive up front than ever (Russos and Chris Evans want a flat up front $20 million each, rather than $10 million each and a percentage of receipts/profits that may or will never come).

 

[_caleb]

Not the same as watching a movie. I am a video game fan, I have friends that are video game fans. Sometimes they want to play games, other times watch a movie. They aren't the same, they aren't even comparable. It's like apples and oranges.

They are both entertainment media, and compete for audience's movie theater time/money.

Metaverse is making "Meta" lose millions of dollars. Won't be surprised if Zuccerburg gets outsed Chapeak style in the near future cause of it.

Right. But the real question is: why isn't Facebook getting into feature-length movie production?

 

[DKampy]

And it is not like Netflix was half hazard about it. Not a "lark" another thing Caleb stated that is so disingenuous. It won't be on the service until next month. So Netflix becomes the studio and distributer which they used to do for home video. It is the modern version of it. It was a planned event and paid them proof.

They are going back to what works and Iger has to admit it will work as an option as their competitors are adapting and succeeding at it.

WB also stated that will be their strategy going forward as their day and date with HBO did not work

 

[_caleb]

I agree Stagecraft is helping with making cheaper films. But, because of the diminished prospect of future royalties, a lot of these productions are more expensive up front than ever (Russos and Chris Evans want a flat up front $20 million each, rather than $10 million each and a percentage of receipts/profits that may or will never come).

Which is part of the reason Chris Evans' MCU character is on hiatus. And why:

Any kind of successful box office movie that exists outside of the intellectual property umbrella have legacy actors or directors attached to them. There is no next Julia Roberts, Tom Cruise, Nic Cage, Helen Mirren, etc. As importantly, I don't think there's a next Spielberg, Scorcese, Cameron, or Nolan -- a director tens of millions of Americans go see because of the name behind the camera.
At the very least, they roll have to work their way up through D2C or very low budget and independent efforts to become a brand strong enough.

 

[Heppenheimer]

If these films keep performing this poorly, there will be no films - woke or otherwise - to complain about. “Go woke, go broke,” is an insipid statement, as it presumes a causality between the latter and the former. Regardless of your stance on the wisdom of putting these relationships and identities/orientations front and center, something is really wrong in the animation division. Is it marketing in general? Is there a problem marketing a film with these aspects to it? Is there a not insignificant portion of the moviegoing public that eschews these films now?l, having been tipped off from WOm or Ben Shapiro or Tucker? Who knows.

There are plenty of films and series that have a LGBTQ storyline or main character that have done well (Peacemaker and Andor are most recent examples). That said, with some of these lesser quality productions there’s a sense that the insertion of these things are inorganic, and they seem to happen with more frequency in films that are generally poorly received. Most of the positive reviews for Strange World celebrated the representation and progressivism of the film, with nary a mention of any other engaging aspects of the film. Okay. Great. How does that entertain the average filmgoer?

That's pretty much how the AVClub reviewed Turning Red and Strange World. For the former, the reviewer primarily praised the diversity of the cast (might make sense for a live action film, but pretty irrelevant for an animated flick), and for the latter, they mostly focused on the representation of the gay character without much explaining of what the film was actually about.

Neither review really ticked my interest in going out to see them in the theater, even if that was an option at this stage of my life.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You make a very good point, and I agree that no one has figured out how to make money–nevermind c.1999 multiplex money–through streaming the movies they produce. This is why the future is in production methods/tech that lower cost. I think we'll see streaming focus more on small-budget deep-cut content that caters to niche audiences rather than big-budget blockbusters that try for mass appeal and all-or-nothing theater releases.

Why is 1999 the baseline?

 

[_caleb]

Not glory days does not mean death. Caleb's arguments move like the Yeti did on opening day, with as much point as it is now with a burnt out strobe light

Not sure what this means but I agree- "not glory days," does not mean "death." I've tried to be careful not to use that word, because I don't think movie theaters are going to die any time soon. I DO think they're going to have to innovate to stay relevant. We're seeing some of this in the rise of theater-based simulcast events, concerts, conferences, game shows, film festivals, etc.

 

[_caleb]

Why is 1999 the baseline?

I supposed it should be 2001 (as the peak of modern movie attendance), but 1999 just felt right in the moment.

 

[Tha Realest]

Why is 1999 the baseline?

Stadium seating

 

[celluloid]

Not sure what this means but I agree- "not glory days," does not mean "death." I've tried to be careful not to use that word, because I don't think movie theaters are going to die any time soon. I DO think they're going to have to innovate to stay relevant. We're seeing some of this in the rise of theater-based simulcast events, concerts, conferences, game shows, film festivals, etc.

That is not exclusive to theaters. You keep painting a dire picture for theaters. Streaming services are doing the same attempts you just said, and have not been around as long. You used the phrase nail in the coffin and called movie goers dumb. Just give it all a rest.

It is almost like business always adapts to times, but people still like going out together for experiences. Shocker.

So it is good that streaming services are starting to realize things. Some companies faster than others.

 

[MrPromey]

“…the foundation of the “problem” here is that investors don’t believe that Napster is a gamechanger. We have to read between the lines.”
—Recording Industry Executives, 1999

How about you two split the difference?

Here's the thing - Napster and then Apple, were essentially the downfall of the established music distribution system. Billions of dollars were lost never to be seen again and the recording industry exists today, a fraction of what it was.

That's good for some, catastrophic for others because it created a more level field allowing unknown artists to be found so for small artists and consumers, it's not bad news but for people who had the potential to be big-ish - not Taylor Swift big but someone you could buy at any store with a music section, they have less and of course, there are a lot of former executives and a lot of former people who once worked in distribution.

It seems unlikely that the streaming model is going to be some great new cash cow for old media but more, like the music business, it's going to destroy a lot of the profit they were accustomed to making and like how Napster gave way to iTunes, what's left will be stable but far less lucrative for the companies involved in producing stuff.

Unlike music, though, all those executives and the "little" people involved in making movies and shows will still be around needing to get paid.

If it was JUST TVs lunch, streaming was coming to eat, things might have worked out different but if it eats TV, Theater, and home purchase/rental, Disney's going to be raising the price of churros a lot in coming years.

We're also likely going to be seeing a lot less innovation and chance-taking with the stories they choose to tell since those stories will have to be able to push toys at Christmas and shirt and themed mickey ears in theme parks all year round.

With movies, failure was always baked into things - they needed a few movies to hit big to cover the loses for the ones that fizzled and still provide profits.

This new model leaves no room for fizzles going forward if you're Disney.

 

[_caleb]

Stadium seating

I LOVED the advent of stadium seating! I was out of town when DS:MM came out, and had to watch in an old-fashioned normal seating theater and I did not like that at all! (#spoiled)

 

[lazyboy97o]

I supposed it should be 2001 (as the peak of modern movie attendance), but 1999 just felt right in the moment.

Why is the peak the baseline? We’re the 80s a bad decade for movies?

 

[_caleb]

That is not exclusive to theaters. You keep painting a dire picture for theaters. Streaming services are doing the same attempts you just said, and have not been around as long. You used the phrase nail in the coffin and called movie goers dumb. Just give it all a rest.

It is almost like business always adapts to times, but people still like going out together for experiences. Shocker.

So it is good that streaming services are starting to realize things. Some companies faster than others.

Ok

 

[TwilightZone]

Movie theaters have gone a lot better ever since they added reclining chairs. Even the one at my local, tiny theater has reclining chairs.

 

[_caleb]

Why is the peak the baseline? We’re the 80s a bad decade for movies?

Not at all! But attendance has been downhill since 2001 (revenues, on the other hand, continued to climb steadily until 2018).

 

[Todd H]

The rise of the huge home theatres may dim those who need the big screen experience. In the past the quality of the video and audio far surpassed anything that could reasonably be installed at home so you went to the movies. Today for a few thousand you can have the same Dolby sound, atmospheric lighting, comfortable furniture with a 100" screen plus the bonus of your own refrigerator, toilet and a PAUSE button.

I have a dedicated home theater with a 120” screen, 4K projector, and Dolby Atmos surround sound. Sad to say but the picture and sound quality blows away my local cinema. Plus I don’t have to deal with the idiots on their phones. Needless to say I rarely go to the theater now.

 

[JoeCamel]

I have a dedicated home theater with a 120” screen, 4K projector, and Dolby Atmos surround sound. Sad to say but the picture and sound quality blows away my local cinema. Plus I don’t have to deal with the idiots on their phones. Needless to say I rarely go to the theater now.

I thought about adding that. Other than the thrill of seeing a first run with a room full of cheering patrons there is limited draw to the theatre experience and with the costs of building a premium experience the theatre has a tough time making money.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Why is the peak the baseline? We’re the 80s a bad decade for movies?

Yeah, I'm not sure why we're not looking at the decline since the mid-40s. Declining theater attendance has been a fact for 80 years! Cinema attendance in 1999 is utterly miniscule compared to 1946 - and yet movie theaters survived.

 

[MrPromey]

Metaverse is making "Meta" lose millions of dollars. Won't be surprised if Zuccerburg gets outsed Chapeak style in the near future cause of it.

Being employee #1 has it's perks - like the ability to keep controlling ownership of the company you run if you play your cards right.

Unless that changes, I don't think anyone can make him go anywhere.

I'm sure that gives him a lot more confidence than most executives have when it comes to playing the long game.

Time will tell if what he's actually doing is running his business into the ground, though.