The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

[TP2000]

They didn't release Turning Red in theaters. That's weird, if Disney really thinks it's a great movie people would pay to see.

Which brings me to the next question... How does a movie studio justify or quantify it's financial gain, or even write off the financial loss, from a movie if it goes directly to the studio's streaming service?

For over 100 years, the box office receipts were how movie's were judged and quantified. What do they use now if the viewer already paid their fifteen bucks for the month for the studio streaming service. Especially if an entire family of four is watching and rewatching that movie for 15 bucks a month, when just a few years ago the entire family would have had to buy 15 dollar movie tickets per person each time they wanted to see the movie?

It seems to me the studios have a lot to lose if they spend big bucks to produce a movie, only to just release it on their low cost streaming service for unlimited family downloads.

 

[PiratesMansion]

They didn't release Turning Red in theaters. That's weird, if Disney really thinks it's a great movie people would pay to see.

Which brings me to the next question... How does a movie studio justify or quantify it's financial gain, or even write off the financial loss, from a movie if it goes directly to the studio's streaming service?

For over 100 years, the box office receipts were how movie's were judged and quantified. What do they use now if the viewer already paid their fifteen bucks for the month for the studio streaming service. Especially if an entire family of four is watching and rewatching that movie for 15 bucks a month, when just a few years ago the entire family would have had to buy 15 dollar movie tickets per person each time they wanted to see the movie?

It seems to me the studios have a lot to lose if they spend big bucks to produce a movie, only to just release it on their low cost streaming service for unlimited family downloads.

They also didn't release Soul or Luca to theaters. I don't think it's any particular indictment on Turning Red specifically, though you could argue that Pixar has officially become the second stringer studio by Disney's actions if nothing else.

I don't believe either studio is consistently making high quality films at the moment; both Disney and Pixar have had a handful of successes surrounded by a lot of middling (in earnings and quality) content.

Clearly the way people and companies are measuring film metrics has changed. People can crow all they want about how, say, Encanto didn't make enough money at the box office, especially people that want to think that they're smarter than everyone else, but it's been shown time and time again that $$ at the box office is no longer the sole criteria for success.

 

[TP2000]

Clearly the way people and companies are measuring film metrics has changed. People can crow all they want about how, say, Encanto didn't make enough money at the box office, especially people that want to think that they're smarter than everyone else, but it's been shown time and time again that $$ at the box office is no longer the sole criteria for success.

That's the part that confuses me. Hollywood studios are not public welfare services or government agencies. They aren't even highly subsidized quasi-private firms like Amtrak that loses a Billion dollars a year. They are private businesses that must turn a profit regularly, or else they cease to exist.

If a studio spends $100 Million on a movie, it needs to get that money back and then some.

So how are the studios (not just Disney) going to make money going forward if they spend over a hundred million dollars on a movie, and then just release it to the $15 an hour streaming service the studio runs?

Turning Red had a total budget of $175 Million, according to generally reliable online sources. Disney has to make at least $200 Million on that film in order to keep making more $175 Million dollar movies for families to watch. Right?

Turning Red - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Skip]

That's the part that confuses me. Hollywood studios are not public welfare services or government agencies. They aren't even highly subsidized quasi-private firms like Amtrak that loses a Billion dollars a year. They are private businesses that must turn a profit regularly, or else they cease to exist.

If a studio spends $100 Million on a movie, it needs to get that money back and then some.

So how are the studios (not just Disney) going to make money going forward if they spend over a hundred million dollars on a movie, and then just release it to the $15 an hour streaming service the studio runs?

Turning Red had a total budget of $175 Million, according to generally reliable online sources. Disney has to make at least $200 Million on that film in order to keep making more $175 Million dollar movies for families to watch. Right?

Turning Red - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are not the only industry pundit to point out this paradox. (Is it even a paradox? It seems more like a logical fallacy.) This whole thing came about because Netflix effectively got permission from Wall Street to spend an unlimited amount of money on original content. Unable to compete, the other studios created their own streamers and began shoveling money into their respective fires, one by one. The idea is, I suppose, is that you'll eventually amass so many subscribers that you can comfortably afford what you're spending on content. Except... that isn't what's played out, as Netflix (and others) have been forced to spend even more to prevent churn. Unclear what happens when everyone realizes this level of spending isn't sustainable, but some have guessed *even more* consolidation. In short, a mess, one that consumers (and artists) ultimately lose.

Sorry for the unsolicited explanation, but this is my industry, and it's been something that's been troubling me for quite a few years now.

EDIT: Realizing my explanation omits an important point. One of the key things here is that the major streamers - Amazon, Apple, and especially Netflix - all have deeper pockets and appetites for spending than any legacy studio is comfortable with, so the legacy studios were constantly being outbid for all-star projects. This was part of what forced the legacy studios to form their streamers: It's backwards logic, but they literally basically went, "Well, hey Wall Street. We're doing what Netflix is doing, which should drive up our stock price and justify our increased investment in and spending on our new service. Never mind that the numbers don't add up - it's a money loser right now, but it won't be, eventually. Don't ask me how."

 

[TP2000]

You are not the only industry pundit to point out this paradox. (Is it even a paradox? It seems more like a logical fallacy.) This whole thing came about because Netflix effectively got permission from Wall Street to spend an unlimited amount of money on original content. Unable to compete, the other studios created their own studios and began shoveling money into their respective fires, one by one. The idea is, I suppose, is that you'll eventually amass so many subscribers that you can comfortably afford what you're spending on content. Except... that isn't what's played out, as Netflix (and others) have been forced to spend even more to prevent churn. Unclear what happens when everyone realizes this level of spending isn't sustainable, but some have guessed *even more* consolidation. In short, a mess, one that consumers (and artists) ultimately lose.

Sorry for the unsolicited explanation, but this is my industry, and it's been something that's been troubling me for quite a few years now.

Thank you! I've only been thinking about it recently, especially now that the pandemic is effectively over and some movies have pulled in record-setting gonzo Billion Dollar Plus box office numbers the past few months.

And yet... Disney is releasing first run, big budget family animation like Turning Red direct to video via Disney+???

How much longer can they afford to do that? I can't imagine that's penciling out for them.

Nor can I imagine that when Turning Red was greenlit and given a $175 Million production/marketing budget back in 2019 that Burbank execs thought "Yeah, we'll spend about 175 Million on this movie, but then we'll just stream it over the Internet to families that already pay 8 bucks per month to watch our archived content, and they can even invite the neighbor kids over to watch it for free with them, so those kids won't buy movie tickets either."

I'm certainly no entertainment business guru. But that is obviously not a business strategy that makes much sense.

 

[Parteecia]

Has anyone watched Red Panda yet?

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I don't get those who think it only has a narrow audience. I mean, I've never been a white male astronaut stranded on Mars or a gay cowboy but I can relate to those just fine.

I will reiterate my completely unscientific crackpot theory that I just posted in another thread: I think the target audience for the big money makers is less likely to be leery of catching covid than the family or more serious movie goers.

 

[TP2000]

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I don't get those who think it only has a narrow audience. I mean, I've never been a white male astronaut stranded on Mars or a gay cowboy but I can watch those just fine.

I didn't get that criticism either. I've never been an English nanny with magical skills, but I absolutely adore Mary Poppins. I've also never been a stuffy London banker, a slightly daffy Sufragette, a Cockney chimneysweep, or a precious doe-eyed child who just wanted to spend my tuppence on feeding the birds. But I watch Mary Poppins on Blu-Ray about every two years. I will likely continue to do that until I die.

I think there's probably a million of those "I've never been a..." examples. To use that as a reason why a movie wouldn't succeed in the free market seems really dumb to me.

EDIT: Well, I was once a precious doe-eyed child, a long time ago. But I just sort of sat around being a precious doe-eyed child and didn't really care about the birds. And I still don't know what a tuppence is.

 

[Disney Irish]

They didn't release Turning Red in theaters. That's weird, if Disney really thinks it's a great movie people would pay to see.

Which brings me to the next question... How does a movie studio justify or quantify it's financial gain, or even write off the financial loss, from a movie if it goes directly to the studio's streaming service?

For over 100 years, the box office receipts were how movie's were judged and quantified. What do they use now if the viewer already paid their fifteen bucks for the month for the studio streaming service. Especially if an entire family of four is watching and rewatching that movie for 15 bucks a month, when just a few years ago the entire family would have had to buy 15 dollar movie tickets per person each time they wanted to see the movie?

It seems to me the studios have a lot to lose if they spend big bucks to produce a movie, only to just release it on their low cost streaming service for unlimited family downloads.

Streaming is changing the whole Hollywood landscape. The old model wasn't sustainable long term as all forms of digital media is taking the eyeballs away from the traditional movie release. I know it doesn't seem like it with Billion dollar movies making headlines it seems like every week pre-pandemic. But those are actually few and far between as there have only been 48 Billion dollar movies so far. So the theory goes that you keep your tent pole films for the theater and you push your smaller films to streaming.

And so for streaming instead of ticket sales being the metric its watchable hours as being the metric by how streaming content is judged and quantified. For example Encanto is averaging 1.3 Billion watchable hours a week, you read that right, that is Billion with a B. That is over 180 Million times its been watched so far. And so that is what this is all about, pushing content to D+ so you keep those eyes ONLY on D+ and not another streamer like Netflix.

There will be a reflection point here in the near future I'm sure. But the end result will be more choice for consumers on how they want to consume their entertainment as each studio fights for our every stretched attention.

 

[chadwpalm]

Speaking of streaming, I FINALLY after all these years started watching Stranger Things. I needed to see what all the hype was about. While the first season was good and the second okay, the third is not very good at all and I find the show slightly overrated.

 

[Phroobar]

Speaking of streaming, I FINALLY after all these years started watching Stranger Things. I needed to see what all the hype was about. While the first season was good and the second okay, the third is not very good at all and I find the show slightly overrated.

What? You didn't laugh at this scene?

 

[chadwpalm]

What? You didn't laugh at this scene?

I just finished episode 2 of the 3rd season. I'll respond when I've watched that one lol.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Just bought my ticket and made a reservation for Magic Kingdom in May, so it’s official. I look forward to sharing my thoughts with my fellow Disneylanders here after the trip.

 

[CaptinEO]

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I don't get those who think it only has a narrow audience. I mean, I've never been a white male astronaut stranded on Mars or a gay cowboy but I can relate to those just fine.

I will reiterate my completely unscientific crackpot theory that I just posted in another thread: I think the target audience for the big money makers is less likely to be leery of catching covid than the family or more serious movie goers.

I will say it is absolutely racist or sexist for someone to say the film can't appeal to them.

What about films like Cars where all the characters are cars? Can you enjoy it without being a Car?

A film with white american men is considered universal but a Chinese girl growing up is too hard to identify with?

How narrow minded can people be?

My wife and I saw the film and thought it was very funny and a cute story about growing up.

 

[mickEblu]

I will say it is absolutely racist or sexist for someone to say the film can't appeal to them.

What about films like Cars where all the characters are cars? Can you enjoy it without being a Car?

A film with white american men is considered universal but a Chinese girl growing up is too hard to identify with?

How narrow minded can you be.

My wife and I saw the film and thought it was very funny and a cute story about growing up.

I actually feel that this ^^^ comment is very narrow minded. So EVERY movie has to appeal to EVERYone then? I enjoy different cultures and always rave about movies like Coco for example. I also have watched all the princess movies and have been known to say Cinderella is my favorite Disney movie of all time. Other movies geared toward woman, girls or other cultures did a better job of appealing to broader audiences with their variety in characters, songs and various plot lines. This movie doesn’t do a whole of that. So if I don’t really care for the story of this pre teen girl, her “period” and crushes, drama with her mom, giant red pandas or fake N Sync songs what do I have left?

 

[CaptinEO]

I actually feel that this ^^^ comment is very narrow minded. So EVERY movie has to appeal to EVERYone then? I enjoy different cultures and always rave about movies like Coco for example. I also have watched all the princess movies and have been known to say Cinderella is my favorite Disney movie of all time. Other movies geared toward woman, girls or other cultures did a better job of appealing to broader audiences with their variety in characters, songs and various plot lines. This movie doesn’t do a whole of that. So if I don’t really care for the story of this pre teen girl, her period and crushes, drama with her mom, giant red pandas or fake N Sync songs what do I have left?

I think you misread my post.

Not saying anyone has to enjoy or like a movie. Just no one should write it off because a character is not the same as the watcher.

I dislike plenty of movies, but this is not because of the race or sex of a character.

If you can try to put yourself in the shoes of the character, that's all that matters IMO and then from that point on whether you like a film or not is a whole other story.

 

[mickEblu]

I think you misread my post.

Not saying anyone has to enjoy or like a movie. Just no one should write it off because a character is not the same as the watcher.

I dislike plenty of movies, but this is not because of the race or sex of a character.

If you can try to put yourself in the shoes of the character, that's all that matters IMO and then from that point on whether you like a film or not is a whole other story.

Did I? I’m the only one that expressed that view on the movie on this thread so I assumed you at least had me in mind when you wrote it. I just think you have to slow down throwing out the words “racist” and “sexist.” Came off a little Twittery. It was a little surprising to me as based on your posting history I know you re capable of thinking for yourself and being a lot more nuanced then that.

 

[CaptinEO]

Did I? I’m the only one that expressed that view on the movie on this thread so I assumed you at least had me in mind when you wrote it. I just think you have to slow down throwing out the words “racist” and “sexist.” Came off a little Twittery. It was a little surprising to me as based on your posting history I know you re capable of thinking for yourself and being a lot more nuanced then that.

I wrote that reply before I saw anything you posted.

Unfortunately there is tons of asian racism as well as sexism towards women that I see rearing its head with the reaction people have to this movie.

Things I did not see exist when Encanto, Soul, or Coco came out. Maybe society isn't as sensitive to asian cultures as they are to others?

The fact that people complain about "target demographics" when it's a story of a teenage Chineese girl is incredibly racist and sexist to me.

I'm not a hispanic woman and I watched Encanto. Why does it matter?

If the sole write off is because of the race or gender of a character, that's the textbook definition racism/sexism.

 

[waltography]

Other movies geared toward woman, girls or other cultures did a better job of appealing to broader audiences with their variety in characters, songs and various plot lines. This movie doesn’t do a whole of that. So if I don’t really care for the story of this pre teen girl, her “period” and crushes, drama with her mom, giant red pandas or fake N Sync songs what do I have left?

It's a coming-of-age story, what could be more universal? The historical cues are decidedly more recent being set in the 2000s, but the panic of puberty, having conflict with your parents, having crushes, etc. isn't exclusive to women nor Chinese Canadians.

 

[Disney Irish]

I wrote that reply before I saw anything you posted.

Unfortunately there is tons of asian racism as well as sexism towards women that I see rearing its head with this movie.

Things I did not see exist when Encanto, Soul, or Coco came out. Maybe society isn't as sensitive to asian cultures as they are to others?

The fact that people complain about "target demographics" when it's a story of a teenage Chineese girl is incredibly racist and sexist to me.

I'm not a hispanic woman and I watched Encanto. Why does it matter?

If the sole write off is because of the race or gender of a character, that's the textbook definition racism/sexism.

Funny, as its written and directed by two Asian women, one of whom grew up in Canada. So not sure where you got that the movie was racist and sexist toward Asians or women.

 

[waltography]

I wrote that reply before I saw anything you posted.

Unfortunately there is tons of asian racism as well as sexism towards women that I see rearing its head with this movie.

Things I did not see exist when Encanto, Soul, or Coco came out. Maybe society isn't as sensitive to asian cultures as they are to others?

The fact that people complain about "target demographics" when it's a story of a teenage Chineese girl is incredibly racist and sexist to me.

I'm not a hispanic woman and I watched Encanto. Why does it matter?

If the sole write off is because of the race or gender of a character, that's the textbook definition racism/sexism.

Society hates teenage girls and puts down everything they like; Bieber, One Direction, BTS, VSCO girls, and so on. So it makes sense that when some folks see a movie like Turning Red that is so unapologetic in leaning into the parts that make society cringe, it becomes ripe for criticism.

Funny, as its written and directed by two Asian women, one of whom is grew up in Canada. So not sure where you got that the movie was racist and sexist toward Asians or women.

I think you misread what they said. They're saying that many critiques of this movie have been rooted in racism/misogyny.