• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Coronavirus's impact on the worldwide box office
3 3

572 posts in this topic

18 hours ago, media_junkie said:

Well, I personally think that is great.  A 48 hour rental price of $19.99 is cheaper than the $48.00 I'd have to pony up to see this in theaters with the kids.

Not to mention "pause for bathroom" "pause for more popcorn" "pause for drinks" "pause for pizza" "what did he just say rewind" and "I'm too sleepy, let's finish it tomorrow" that aren't possible for $48 at the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, valiantman said:

Not to mention "pause for bathroom" "pause for more popcorn" "pause for drinks" "pause for pizza" "what did he just say rewind" and "I'm too sleepy, let's finish it tomorrow" that aren't possible for $48 at the theater.

And most importantly, no strangers talking during the damn movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, D84 said:
6 hours ago, valiantman said:

Not to mention "pause for bathroom" "pause for more popcorn" "pause for drinks" "pause for pizza" "what did he just say rewind" and "I'm too sleepy, let's finish it tomorrow" that aren't possible for $48 at the theater.

And most importantly, no strangers talking during the damn movie.

Right - the one who buys everyone's ticket gets to tell them when to shut it or leave the room. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2020 at 8:05 PM, Grails said:

I would never rent any movie at $20 when it will be available for purchase at that price or less a month or two later. With so many viewing options, I can wait.

I think the $20 rental is a good idea, but they will be losing some earlier money to those who will wait to own for $20.

The question is whether they're still going to get that full $20 later, or whether some who would have owned the first day for $20 will only pay $5 or less to rent later.

If they lose a bunch of $20 sales to $5 rentals later, they'll wish they had just made the movie $20 to purchase on the first day.

I'm not convinced $20 to rent is the most profitable model, but it certainly beats $0 from movie theaters being closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To celebrate the anniversary of the release of Avengers:Endgame

According to Comscore, the box office is down by more than $1.5 billion compared to this time last year, when "Avengers: Endgame" had hit theaters with the biggest domestic opening weekend of all time. The domestic box office was at $3.37 billion by this time in 2019, compared to $1.816 billion this year for a 46.2% decrease

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, paperheart said:

It can go both ways. It definitely sounded contentious for sure. And a warning to other studios. But also very desperate, realizing with all the massive streaming platforms coming online the 'Netflix disease' is growing stronger leading to lower theater-based mass releases.

Or did you assume the large-scale push for Disney+, HBO Max, NBC's Peacock and more was just a tiny experiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.  I'll straight up admit that I would love for first run movies to be released as a VOD option, for me and my family it would be cheaper (by a lot) and way easier.  However what works for Universal with Trolls 2 (which was never going to be more than a mid-level hit at best) may not work with something like say FF9 (which is Universal's bread and butter franchise at this point).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, media_junkie said:

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.  I'll straight up admit that I would love for first run movies to be released as a VOD option, for me and my family it would be cheaper (by a lot) and way easier.  However what works for Universal with Trolls 2 (which was never going to be more than a mid-level hit at best) may not work with something like say FF9 (which is Universal's bread and butter franchise at this point).  

Agree that not all productions should go direct to video.

But it made the bankruptcy-pending theater chain look even more desperate with this announcement. Not the image AMC wants to have right now with its studio partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Agree that not all productions should go direct to video.

I wonder if AMC (or any theater) would back down if Universal released some to home and some to theater.  I mean lets be honest the theaters make the lion share of their money on concessions.  I imagine AMC would lose more money from loss of concessions for a movies like Fast and Furious, Jurrasic World or Minions than Universal would from showing on VOD only and not getting as many ticket sales cause families would be purchasing one $20 instead of 5 $10.  

I read one article where it stated studios get to keep 80% of VOD "ticket" sales, where we know theaters average out to around 50% for the studio.  Family of 5 would give $16.00 to the studio for VOD while give $25 (based on a $10 ticket where I live) to the studio at the theater.  So the studio would lose $9 over 5 people.  Now how much would the theater lose in concessions?  Say that works out to $50 for that family of 5, that is straight up $50 in profit (popcorn and sodas are cheap as heck for the theater to buy) that the theater loses.  

I don't see how AMC can afford to make a blanket statement of "we don't want your movies".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing about this, but outside looking, it looks like

Universal said we will release straight to video, theater conceded and said ok since you're asking will follow orders and not show the movie as you requested and we won't receive them anyway 

And somehow th movie is the bad guy?

Sounds like they had no choice in the matter, and a paraphrase of you can't quit because we fire you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 5:41 AM, Bosco685 said:

It definitely sounded contentious for sure. And a warning to other studios.

It was far more than a warning, it was an explicitly directed message to ALL studios--which is why I have NO respect for all those articles making it sound like AMC was singling out Universal in their clickbait headlines.  This is the key bit directed at all of Hollywood:

Quote

this policy is not aimed solely at Universal out of pique or to be punitive in any way, it also extends to any movie maker who unilaterally abandons current windowing practices absent good faith negotiations between us, so that they as distributor and we as exhibitor both benefit and neither are hurt from such changes. Currently, with the press comment today, Universal is the only studio contemplating a wholesale change to the status quo. Hence, this immediate communication in response.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

It was far more than a warning, it was an explicitly directed message to ALL studios--which is why I have NO respect for all those articles making it sound like AMC was singling out Universal in their clickbait headlines.  This is the key bit directed at all of Hollywood:

 

That's the way that I heard it too :shy: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3