A single IMAX 3D ticket (for 1 Adult) costs about $26 bucks, in NYC.
A regular ticket (for 1 Adult) costs about $14 bucks.
Matinee prices are cheaper.
Damn.
I'm missing those IMAX and Dolby Cinema Theaters on Broadway and 68th.
Christopher Nolan Thinks Netflix is ‘Missing a Huge Opportunity’
- Thread starter ansatsusha_gouki
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christopher nolan netflix
Damn.
I'm missing those IMAX and Dolby Cinema Theaters on Broadway and 68th.
God-Of-War-420
Mr. Pool
I like how these guys pretend they care about theatres and the theatre experience. He's just worried about the money he'll lose from what he receives from the box office. If streaming paid actors And directors the same they wouldn't give a fuck.
Streaming is changing the game up, covid advanced it faster than expected. These people see the future, smaller budgets, more inovation to cut cost on cgi/sets(like the mandalorians led screen set they built) and the convinience and cost cutting that comes with the home theatre experience.
4k TVs are cheap as fuck now(and the top of the line blow theatres screens out of the water)
Sound systems are cheap as fuck now.
So in conclusion, I won't be crying that Chris nolan might make 15 mill instead of 25 mill thanks to streaming. So take your white tears and fuck off
Streaming is changing the game up, covid advanced it faster than expected. These people see the future, smaller budgets, more inovation to cut cost on cgi/sets(like the mandalorians led screen set they built) and the convinience and cost cutting that comes with the home theatre experience.
4k TVs are cheap as fuck now(and the top of the line blow theatres screens out of the water)
Sound systems are cheap as fuck now.
So in conclusion, I won't be crying that Chris nolan might make 15 mill instead of 25 mill thanks to streaming. So take your white tears and fuck off
Actually all hes saying is they are losing money trying to destroy the theaters. Notice how Disney didn't release any huge movies doing covid. Ask yourself why not? Why make 300 million on streaming when u can make a billion and still make the 300 million. Thats the point hes trying to make. Big budgeted movies will never be release to streaming 1st when they can make a billion at the theaters. It will never happen. And thats the point. Netflix could make a billion releasing their own movies in theaters. And then make more on their streaming site because its their own content......
If you could make a billy instead of 300 million doing the same dam thing, would u or would u continue to make the 300 milly
They released Mulan and they gonna release another movie on Xmas I believe
Mulan wasnt gonna a be a huge blockbuster. And i think u talking about Soul. Aint that wasnt going to be a blockbuster either. But notice no marvel, no star wars, no big movies.,etc etc. Why not?
HBOMax, WB and Universal say differently
And thats why HBO Max sucks right now; @ViCiouS posted the video as to why they are releasing those movies; because HBO max isnt getting subscribers. And notice how you see all the other peoples involved in the movie pissed!! Shit doesnt make sense from a business standpoint; and clearly you guys are missing his point...HBOMax, WB and Universal say differently
The Asian market brings in 9 figs alone.. Disney movies bring in 9 figs alone in America.. plus this was a girl power movie.. Mulan was supposed to generate a billion worldwide..they been said that.. soul was supposed to generate close to or maybe a billion.. black cast, female empowerment..Disney had the most billion dollar movies in one yr like last yr or the yr b4.. some of those movies weren’t expected to make a billion and they did.. Mulan in Asia was what lion king in America was suppose to do but due to covid it didn’t go down that way.. I really think you underestimate what Mulan and soul was supposed to generate.. they postponed marvel movie cause they had to postpone all the Disney series that was going to Disney plus.. the new series are supposed to connect with the movies.. covid fucked up the release dates.. they want to still make money from theatres but push come to shove they gonna fuck around and put that on their streaming sites
Subscription is the future of biz.. look at Costco.. it’s more money on monthly/yrly subscription than its single performance.. Disney will generate all the revenue if you just have to pay for their subscription.. they have to split percentages if they release a film in a theatre.. they want to make money on a single big event but they will come to realize it’s more money in membership or better yet consistent money.. consistent bread is better than hits here and there.. it’s why they got into the subscription service game in the first place.. pay attention they put their foot in the water to see how that subscription service was gonna do.. now that they see them figs and well covid changing certain plans , you can best bet they will put more of their body in the water and push way more for that subscription service.. expect that fee to rise and more people joining their service
According to five people familiar with the meeting, Plepler laid out a simple path forward:
First, give HBO more money to spend on content.
Second, augment the Cinemax premium TV channel with more family-friendly original, library, and licensed children’s programming.
Third, sell HBO and Cinemax together for a couple dollars more than HBO — around $17 per month.
Fourth, hammer out a deal with Comcast, the largest U.S. cable company, allowing the broadband distributor to sell HBO Go directly to broadband-only customers.
Finally, and most importantly, don’t blow HBO up.
Plepler’s team estimated this plan would guarantee $7.5 billion in annual revenue plus future upside depending on the success of the new content.
Stankey heard them out. Then, he ignored their advice. Stankey had bigger ambitions for streaming video. Less than three months later, Plepler announced he was leaving WarnerMedia.
Instead, Stankey decided to use HBO as the centerpiece for a new mission: Build a true Netflix competitor, dubbed HBO Max. When Stankey took over as AT&T’s CEO this year, he passed that goal to new WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar, who previously launched Hulu. HBO Max launched in May.
Along the way, Stankey has dismantled the old Time Warner, spurring dozens of executives from all parts of the company to depart. He is attempting to funnel all of the company’s resources from cable, film, and HBO into HBO Max, as he told CNBC last year.
Disney, Comcast’s NBCUniversal and ViacomCBS are all going through similar changes now to prepare for a world where subscription streaming services overtake cable as the world’s primary form of television consumption. Stankey — the MBA-buzzword, deep-voiced phone guy — was ahead of the trend.
Still, his vision has irritated some recently departed veteran WarnerMedia executives, who question Stankey’s knowledge of media. The execution of his mission, which Kilar has overseen since May, has so far been marred by strategic confusion and culture clashes, according to more than a dozen high-ranking WarnerMedia employees, about half of whom have left the company in the past six months.
For now, investors don’t like what they see. AT&T is trading near a 10-year low. Meanwhile Verizon, AT&T’s closest competitor, is trading near an all-time high. The most glaring difference between the two companies? Verizon didn’t spend $170 billion buying Time Warner and DirecTV in the past five years.
The home of the Sopranos is under siege: Inside the battle for the soul of HBO
John Stankey and Jason Kilar have an ambitious plan to take on Netflix with HBO Max. CNBC's Alex Sherman gets the inside story from execs, past and present.
God-Of-War-420
Mr. Pool
It's not about that, if times are changing adapt or go extinct. Non of these people are starving so here's the world's smallest violin playing just for him.If you could make a billy instead of 300 million doing the same dam thing, would u or would u continue to make the 300 milly
Nothing has changed though and it is about that. Its always about the money...
stop. lol
wonder woman and the matrix. both billion dollar franchises are being released to streaming day one.
Last edited:
Yes and it was a dumb business decision trying to make up for another dumb business decision...
If you could make a billy instead of 300 million doing the same dam thing, would u or would u continue to make the 300 milly
Like I said things are moving toward convenience. Of course they can make 1 billion or more in theaters they have to find a way to try to get 1 billion streaming. Business models change all the time. Streaming and this pandemic has altered the way people experience movie watching.
If they expect to have a billion among all this, make movies so good people want to risk their lives to go see.
No it hasnt lol; people been streaming before the pandemic and people will continue to stream; with the current streaming model, that billy that they can get from movie theaters aint happening; because streaming companies are not gonna pay for that; so until that changes, it makes no sense to release a movie that has 500plus million potential or more on to a streaming site without going to theaters 1st...
I’m looking at things from the convenience of the consumer not Hollywood.
What you are missing is Disney is going to generate all that revenue no matter what; Releasing a movie to a theater 1st, doesnt stop Disney or any other Movie owner from losing revenue; they loose revenue if they dont release the movie in the theaters; Black Widow is going to make Disney what like 500million to a billy in the theaters right; it would not make that on the site; they will continue to use movie theaters until they figure out how to get that extra money...
Yes and that makes total sense; but you know they never look at it from our point of view lol
The Mulan Math Was Wrong: Disney Plus Debut Didn't Earn $261 Million
The analytics firm used by Yahoo! misinterpreted the data,
By Matt Fowler, Jim Vejvoda
Updated: 23 Sep 2020 6:28 pm
Posted: 23 Sep 2020 3:02 pm
UPDATE:It turns out Yahoo! got the math very wrong in recently claiming Mulanearned $261 million in 12 days from Disney+ alone.
While Disney has not officially shared numbers on Mulan's performance, the analytics firm used by Yahoo! misinterpreted the data and now says Mulan only made between $60-$90 million from its digital-only domestic debut.
Mulan's VOD sales then appear to have not beaten the total global box office gross of Tenet, a film which went for theatrical release only as opposed to Mulan's split release of digital at home and theatrical abroad. As The Atlantic points out, "Neither bet really paid off." As the site explains:
Mulan’ PVOD Results: Disney CEO Bob Chapek “Pleased”, But Stays Mum On Numbers
By Anthony D'Alessandro
Anthony D'Alessandro
Editorial Director/Box Office Editor
@AwardsTonyMore Stories By Anthony
- ‘The Marksman’: Liam Neeson Action Pic Sets Sights On MLK Weekend
- Weta Digital Names Ken Kamins, Tom Staggs & Jeff Huber To Board; Offices To Open In California
- Jennifer Lopez Teaming With Netflix For Adaptation Of Novel ‘The Cipher’
If you’re dying to know what the total revenue reap was from Disney’s combined PVOD/Disney+/overseas theatrical release experiment of Mulan, well, we just have to wait for the studio’s investor day on December 10. That’s when they’re reportedly going to tell us more.
Disney CEO Bob Chapek said on Thursday’s Q4 and year-end earning call that he was “pleased with the results of Mulan as a premiere access title,” which repped the studio’s foray in providing an extra tier PVOD access to Disney+ subscribers to a premium title, this one originally intended for a worldwide theatrical release. Disney sold Mulan at an extra $29.99 to Disney+ members where the streaming service was available in markets (i.e., U.S., the UK). The pic was released theatrically abroad in those markets where cinemas were fully opened, i.e., Asia, with Mulan seeing $66.8 million, a majority of that figure from China.
RELATED STORY
Disney CEO Bob Chapek Blasts California Gov. Gavin Newsom On Shuttered Disneyland; Sees Park Closed At Least Through Year End
Industry buzz has been that the Mulan experiment, at least on the streaming side, was not a success, given how quiet the studio has been about reporting revenue and viewership figures. Other factors causing doubt about Mulan: Disney was quick to announce the film’s December 4 free availability to Disney+ subs, days before its September 4 PVOD release. Why do that? Another indication Mulan wasn’t an immediate success was how soon it was fast-tracked to regular PVOD (outside Disney+). Oh, and let’s not forget that Disney is making another theatrical release, Pixar’s Soul, available for free on December 25. If Mulan went so well, again, why do that?
“Unfortunately the title was met with controversy in the U.S. and internationally,” Chapek said today about Mulan, “but we saw positive results to know that that we had something in the premiere access strategy.”
In regards to making Soul available for free on Disney+ and not implementing a PVOD-Disney+ premiere strategy on that title, the CEO said, “In terms of Soul, we also realize that the lifeblood of Disney+ is providing content to base level subscribers. The idea was that it was a really nice gesture to take it out during the holiday period and provide it on the service.”
All of this said, it’s plausible Mulan may have contributed to a spike in Disney+ subs, though Chapek didn’t specify that today. Disney+ reported 73.7 million subscribers as of September 30, up from 60.5 million subs in August.
Separately, outside of Disney, Nielsen reported earlier this fall that Mulan made its top 10 streaming list for the week of August 31-September 6 in the No. 10 spot with 525 million minutes viewed. By comparison, Netflix’s Cobra Kai was No. 1 that week with 2.17 billion minutes viewed.
S
U said it would never happen. It already has.
Not necessarily.. Disney content for the most part is catered to kids.. most grown people who kids are grown or don’t have kids had no reason to buy Disney plus.. now if you add all that extra content like new marvel movies and shows than you might give them a reason to buy it.. when I think of Disney I think of kids first.. I would cop Disney for children.. if no children are around no need for Disney.. now if you add all that other content and that lineup they announced I might give it a second thought.. this move gets a diff demographic.. it’s like adding a bar to Chuck E. Cheese... when I think of Chuck E. Cheese I think of kids but if you throw in a bar you might literally pull in a diff demographic of consumers.. Disney bringing those movies in is adding a bar
Why are you showing me an article about a post Mulan movie.. when Mulan was being made was covid around? Do you think they made Mulan for covid? No when they originally made Mulan they were thinking big screens , world markets, breaking box office in certain Asian areas.. than covid hit..now they are happy just to get crumbs.. either get crumbs or fig out a way to take a product and make money in a diff way aka streaming.. b4 covid Disney would of easily told you Mulan was gonna be a billion dollar maker.. covid fucked that dream up and now they trying to fig out how to make that movie and others valuable
Christopher Nolan Takes His Next Film to Universal Pictures
By Zoe Haylock@zoe_alliyah
Friendship over with Warner Bros., now Universal is his best friend. Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images
Ooh, the girls are fighting. Christopher Nolan has decided to take his next film to Universal Pictures, backing up his criticism of Warner Bros. The film, which he wrote, is based on J. Robert Oppenheimer’s role in the development of the atom bomb. Per Deadline, the film has been green-lit to begin production early next year, though no cast members have been confirmed. Nolan will produce along with Emma Thomas for Syncopy Inc.
The film ends a longtime relationship between Nolan and Warner Bros., who have worked together on The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, Dunkirk, and Tenet. While Tenet did get a theatrical release during the pre-vaccine pandemic, Nolan publicly took issue when WarnerMedia chief Jason Kilar moved 2021 films to a day-and-date release on HBO Max, helping pad subscriptions for the infant streamer. “It’s about what the French call droit moral,” Nolan told the Washington Post of the decision last December. “Do they own it absolutely, because they paid for it or they financed it? And that is not a purely legalistic question; it’s a question of ethics as well. It’s a question of partnership and collaboration. They did not speak to those filmmakers. They did not consult them about what their plans were for their work. And I felt that somebody needed to point out that that wasn’t the right way to treat those filmmakers.”
By Zoe Haylock@zoe_alliyah
Friendship over with Warner Bros., now Universal is his best friend. Photo: Kevin Winter/Getty Images
Ooh, the girls are fighting. Christopher Nolan has decided to take his next film to Universal Pictures, backing up his criticism of Warner Bros. The film, which he wrote, is based on J. Robert Oppenheimer’s role in the development of the atom bomb. Per Deadline, the film has been green-lit to begin production early next year, though no cast members have been confirmed. Nolan will produce along with Emma Thomas for Syncopy Inc.
The film ends a longtime relationship between Nolan and Warner Bros., who have worked together on The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, Dunkirk, and Tenet. While Tenet did get a theatrical release during the pre-vaccine pandemic, Nolan publicly took issue when WarnerMedia chief Jason Kilar moved 2021 films to a day-and-date release on HBO Max, helping pad subscriptions for the infant streamer. “It’s about what the French call droit moral,” Nolan told the Washington Post of the decision last December. “Do they own it absolutely, because they paid for it or they financed it? And that is not a purely legalistic question; it’s a question of ethics as well. It’s a question of partnership and collaboration. They did not speak to those filmmakers. They did not consult them about what their plans were for their work. And I felt that somebody needed to point out that that wasn’t the right way to treat those filmmakers.”