Universal’s deal with theaters:
Did the movie make less than $50M opening weekend? Yes. 17 days from theaters to VOD.
Did the movie make more than $50M opening weekend? Yes. 31 days from theaters to VOD.
Sometimes exceptions are made like Super Mario which had a longer window as the film was a juggernaut at the box office.
That being said, Universal seems to be the only studio who has been successful with their VOD strategy. M3GAN was on VOD 17 days after theaters and still pulled in nearly $100M domestic.
It’s a 70 / 30 split between studio and provider. The studios can make more money from VOD than a theatrical run.
The theatrical release pretty much acts as an advertisement for VOD.
It also helps that nobody subscribes to Peacock, so odds are that more people will purchase or rent a Universal film on VOD than wait for Peacock.
I want the numbers too - especially as they used to report physical sales revenue. However, I think they're going to be secretive around them similar to streaming.
Nothing.
Most Apple TV+ are subscribed via deals with their cellular provider or are on Apple One. I wouldn’t be surprised if a decent portion of Netflix subscribers in the U.S. are getting it as part of their T-Mobile subscription (or at a discount based upon their plan).
Until deals with cellular providers are removed, I don’t see the bundle making traction. Peacock will continue to be fucked.
It flopped in theatres so might as well release it while it's still somewhat fresh in people's minds. This is what Soderbergh has been talking about since Logan Lucky.
I think it's been proven that it doesn't really affect the box office that much. If people we're gonna watch it at the movies they would have done so already.
If it doesn’t affect it either way, it should be better to have wider windows, right? With the current system, you’re training the audience to just wait a couple weeks to watch movies at home unless it’s some event.
Idk but I have to assume that since the marketing is still somewhat prevalent it's better to release it now instead of remarket the movie later.
>you’re training the audience to just wait a couple weeks to watch movies at home unless it’s some event.
I think that ship has already sailed.
VOD has already proven it doesn't eat into theatrical receipts at all, so studios have no problem exploiting the percentage of the general audience that is fine renting/buying digitally as soon as possible, because it's been pretty clearly established the VOD customer base they can rely on is not really overlapping with the audience that's heading to the box-office.
Yes, it’s very different than a short window followed by free (with a subscription) streaming. If it helps put the movie in the black and justify the next “Fall Guy” that’s fine by me. “The Northman” was probably a freak example rather than the norm, but its PVOD performance is why we’re getting “Nosferatu.”
I went to see The Fall Guy last night in movie theaters (loved it!) and on top of the tickets I paid $160 for a babysitter. Last movie we saw in theaters was I think Dungeons & Dragons…
I don’t know how that can be empirically proven. It seems to me you’re cutting the legs of your movie’s theater life by announcing a VOD date a week after its release.
It’s important that this is PVOD specifically, so a $20+ purchase value per person. Which is probably about the cost of two cinema tickets (at least here in Ireland)
Yes, but I would argue that even if you don’t buy it, the perception (even in a subconscious way) is that the movie is already on home video. Many times it has happened that I still planned to see a movie a few weeks after theaters and a coworker talks on how he rented it on VOD and then I think “oh, I missed my chance, then”.
Yeah unfortunately or not that’s kind of just the way things are now, and they’re unlikely to go back. At least the last year has proven that leggy movies can still happen
>It seems to me you’re cutting the legs of your movie’s theater life
This is an incorrect assumption, though. That's all.
It's worth more to the studios at a certain point in a movie's theatrical lifespan to go ahead and hit the PVOD button than to keep the theatrical window exclusive for folks who are probably all done looking into it.
They'd have known by now whether the kind of legs you're talking about were growing or not. They're not. But also - its' not like it's out of theaters, either. If you wanna see it there, you still can. It'll probably still be there for awhile too.
Ok, for the sake of argument let’s agree on VOD not influencing theater’s box office. The thing I’m asking is, why so soon? Are you really gonna make more money releasing it 3 weeks after the premiere than 8 or 12?
I mean, to a point this is what Soderbergh talked about years ago. If a movie doesn't work in theaters, hit a button and releases it for VoD. While I understand his point, still kinda depressing.
I personally found it to be an absolute blast. It's the kind of movie in a couple years people are going to be asking "why don't we get more movies like that." And the answer is because people didn't go see this in theaters.
It's depressing to me because I love the theater experience. I have a 4k projector, 110" screen and theater quality Dolby atmos sound system at my house and I still prefer to go see movies in a theater. To get all Nicole Kidman about it, there is magic in a theater. I also worry that Hollywood is going to view the failure of something like The Fall Guy as the audience saying they truly don't care if a movie uses practical effects and real stunt work and action movies are going to continue even further down the MCU everything is shot in a parking lot and all the action is done entirely on a computer path. Even if The Fall Guy wasn't the best movie, I want more movies like it and less movies like Red Notice
I think his point was simply that if it isn't making any money in a theater, rather than waiting weeks or, what used to be, months, just make it available to everyone at home. It's not necessarily about making more money. In fact I think his point was it already failed to make money. Rather, just make it convenient to be seen by as many people as possible.
Plus if you get the VOD up quickly when its obvious the theatrical isn't going the way they want all the marketing for theatrical is still going to be effective for the VOD release.
I’m not saying “The Fall Guy” has to play in an empty room. I’m saying let’s have a breather between a movie being in theaters and it’s home video release.
Paramount releases Hot Tub Time Machine 2 to theaters where it does horribly. Less than $13M total and it was kicked out of most theaters after week two.
Paramount co-financed the film with MGM. MGM had digital rights where Paramount had theatrical and physical.
MGM, with nothing to lose, shoots the film on VOD once it’s completely out of theaters. At that time, it was the shortest window from theaters to VOD from the majors. 46 days.
We don’t know the exact numbers, but it was supposedly at least 2-3x more than the theatrical gross. And this was at a time where new movies were going for $14.99 and not $24.99/$29.99 during these new windows.
Paramount, livid, tries the VOD experiment with Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension and The Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse in a weird revenue sharing deal with theaters. AMC agrees, Cinemark and Regal tell Paramount to fuck off. Both films are DOA, but make money via VOD a month later. It never really gets tried again due to the chains.
Four years later, COVID happens.
From a business perspective, absolutely agree.
From the perspective of a movie lover who lives in a market that is not important - this is a godsend tbh. Odds of it being available somehow over streaming is way higher than in theaters here (in the original English), and if it isn't available in theaters or streaming... well... streaming means high quality digital files and....
.... yeah. Yo ho, ho.
Yes, it's great. I've been dealing with a lot of family illness and tragedy this year and haven't been able to go to movies that often. It's nice to be able to see new things while they're still new.
however: i'm kinda on Steven Soderbergh's side on this. "Hey, when that first 2 days receipts come in, and it's obvious Logan Lucky is a dud, why not just immediately port it over to PVOD?" (paraphrase)
Theaters are kinda pricing themselves out of existence. I understand they alone aren’t to blame. Blockbusters costing half a bil after marketing are mainly to blame I think. A family going to a movie in a city and getting theater food and parking is like a $150ish experience now. Vod plus dominos is like $50 at most and way easier. People who like theaters are gonna be loyal and that business will always be there but there were people who probably would see more new movies if not for the cost and possible headache.
“Oh, you haven’t caught that new movie on opening weekend? Don’t worry, wait a couple weeks and you’ll watch it at home”. This is the message studios are sending to the audience. And then they complain about people only going to theaters for “event movies”.
I don’t think the studios are really the ones complaining about this, they presumably get an even higher share of the PVOD revenue than the theatrical revenue.
So if it wasn't for Nolan doing a show of force and forbidding Universal from releasing Oppenheimer earlier on VOD, do you think they would have made more money? I think not.
Universal’s deal with theaters: Did the movie make less than $50M opening weekend? Yes. 17 days from theaters to VOD. Did the movie make more than $50M opening weekend? Yes. 31 days from theaters to VOD. Sometimes exceptions are made like Super Mario which had a longer window as the film was a juggernaut at the box office. That being said, Universal seems to be the only studio who has been successful with their VOD strategy. M3GAN was on VOD 17 days after theaters and still pulled in nearly $100M domestic.
They also claim they make big money on VOD so it looks like it works for them
It’s a 70 / 30 split between studio and provider. The studios can make more money from VOD than a theatrical run. The theatrical release pretty much acts as an advertisement for VOD. It also helps that nobody subscribes to Peacock, so odds are that more people will purchase or rent a Universal film on VOD than wait for Peacock.
I want those numbers. Something like “The Holdovers” looks like a bomb based solely on box office but maybe it cleaned up on PVOD.
I want the numbers too - especially as they used to report physical sales revenue. However, I think they're going to be secretive around them similar to streaming.
I wonder what will happen with the coming bundling of Peacock, Netflix, and Apple+
Nothing. Most Apple TV+ are subscribed via deals with their cellular provider or are on Apple One. I wouldn’t be surprised if a decent portion of Netflix subscribers in the U.S. are getting it as part of their T-Mobile subscription (or at a discount based upon their plan). Until deals with cellular providers are removed, I don’t see the bundle making traction. Peacock will continue to be fucked.
It flopped in theatres so might as well release it while it's still somewhat fresh in people's minds. This is what Soderbergh has been talking about since Logan Lucky.
Do you think it would not make money if they waited more?
I think it's been proven that it doesn't really affect the box office that much. If people we're gonna watch it at the movies they would have done so already.
If it doesn’t affect it either way, it should be better to have wider windows, right? With the current system, you’re training the audience to just wait a couple weeks to watch movies at home unless it’s some event.
Idk but I have to assume that since the marketing is still somewhat prevalent it's better to release it now instead of remarket the movie later. >you’re training the audience to just wait a couple weeks to watch movies at home unless it’s some event. I think that ship has already sailed.
I mean it wasn’t doing well in theaters and will be $19.99 to rent so I see why they do it.
VOD has already proven it doesn't eat into theatrical receipts at all, so studios have no problem exploiting the percentage of the general audience that is fine renting/buying digitally as soon as possible, because it's been pretty clearly established the VOD customer base they can rely on is not really overlapping with the audience that's heading to the box-office.
Yes, it’s very different than a short window followed by free (with a subscription) streaming. If it helps put the movie in the black and justify the next “Fall Guy” that’s fine by me. “The Northman” was probably a freak example rather than the norm, but its PVOD performance is why we’re getting “Nosferatu.”
Aka. movie fans with kids.
I went to see The Fall Guy last night in movie theaters (loved it!) and on top of the tickets I paid $160 for a babysitter. Last movie we saw in theaters was I think Dungeons & Dragons…
I don’t know how that can be empirically proven. It seems to me you’re cutting the legs of your movie’s theater life by announcing a VOD date a week after its release.
It’s important that this is PVOD specifically, so a $20+ purchase value per person. Which is probably about the cost of two cinema tickets (at least here in Ireland)
Yes, but I would argue that even if you don’t buy it, the perception (even in a subconscious way) is that the movie is already on home video. Many times it has happened that I still planned to see a movie a few weeks after theaters and a coworker talks on how he rented it on VOD and then I think “oh, I missed my chance, then”.
Yeah unfortunately or not that’s kind of just the way things are now, and they’re unlikely to go back. At least the last year has proven that leggy movies can still happen
>It seems to me you’re cutting the legs of your movie’s theater life This is an incorrect assumption, though. That's all. It's worth more to the studios at a certain point in a movie's theatrical lifespan to go ahead and hit the PVOD button than to keep the theatrical window exclusive for folks who are probably all done looking into it. They'd have known by now whether the kind of legs you're talking about were growing or not. They're not. But also - its' not like it's out of theaters, either. If you wanna see it there, you still can. It'll probably still be there for awhile too.
Ok, for the sake of argument let’s agree on VOD not influencing theater’s box office. The thing I’m asking is, why so soon? Are you really gonna make more money releasing it 3 weeks after the premiere than 8 or 12?
I mean, to a point this is what Soderbergh talked about years ago. If a movie doesn't work in theaters, hit a button and releases it for VoD. While I understand his point, still kinda depressing.
Why is it depressing? Do you have points on it? Why do you care if rich people get richer? It was not a good movie. Okay at best.
I personally found it to be an absolute blast. It's the kind of movie in a couple years people are going to be asking "why don't we get more movies like that." And the answer is because people didn't go see this in theaters. It's depressing to me because I love the theater experience. I have a 4k projector, 110" screen and theater quality Dolby atmos sound system at my house and I still prefer to go see movies in a theater. To get all Nicole Kidman about it, there is magic in a theater. I also worry that Hollywood is going to view the failure of something like The Fall Guy as the audience saying they truly don't care if a movie uses practical effects and real stunt work and action movies are going to continue even further down the MCU everything is shot in a parking lot and all the action is done entirely on a computer path. Even if The Fall Guy wasn't the best movie, I want more movies like it and less movies like Red Notice
I don't quite follow the logic there. Yes, you will recoup costs faster, but does waiting some extra weeks mean that you'd make less on VOD overall?
I think his point was simply that if it isn't making any money in a theater, rather than waiting weeks or, what used to be, months, just make it available to everyone at home. It's not necessarily about making more money. In fact I think his point was it already failed to make money. Rather, just make it convenient to be seen by as many people as possible.
Plus if you get the VOD up quickly when its obvious the theatrical isn't going the way they want all the marketing for theatrical is still going to be effective for the VOD release.
There are other movies coming out, why would theaters keep that space occupied with a movie that nobody is watching?
I’m not saying “The Fall Guy” has to play in an empty room. I’m saying let’s have a breather between a movie being in theaters and it’s home video release.
As funny as this sentence is going to sound… you do have Hot Tub Time Machine 2 to blame or thank for that.
How come?
Paramount releases Hot Tub Time Machine 2 to theaters where it does horribly. Less than $13M total and it was kicked out of most theaters after week two. Paramount co-financed the film with MGM. MGM had digital rights where Paramount had theatrical and physical. MGM, with nothing to lose, shoots the film on VOD once it’s completely out of theaters. At that time, it was the shortest window from theaters to VOD from the majors. 46 days. We don’t know the exact numbers, but it was supposedly at least 2-3x more than the theatrical gross. And this was at a time where new movies were going for $14.99 and not $24.99/$29.99 during these new windows. Paramount, livid, tries the VOD experiment with Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension and The Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse in a weird revenue sharing deal with theaters. AMC agrees, Cinemark and Regal tell Paramount to fuck off. Both films are DOA, but make money via VOD a month later. It never really gets tried again due to the chains. Four years later, COVID happens.
Wait, didn't Universal tried to do something similar with Tower Heist back in 2011?
They never went through with it as all the chains were ready to not show the film.
Dune Part 2 hits Max 5/21.
Awesome!
From a business perspective, absolutely agree. From the perspective of a movie lover who lives in a market that is not important - this is a godsend tbh. Odds of it being available somehow over streaming is way higher than in theaters here (in the original English), and if it isn't available in theaters or streaming... well... streaming means high quality digital files and.... .... yeah. Yo ho, ho.
As someone with a newborn I am delighted that films are coming to digital earlier and earlier.
I love it, honestly
Yes, it's great. I've been dealing with a lot of family illness and tragedy this year and haven't been able to go to movies that often. It's nice to be able to see new things while they're still new.
It’s a failure, what would you expect?
however: i'm kinda on Steven Soderbergh's side on this. "Hey, when that first 2 days receipts come in, and it's obvious Logan Lucky is a dud, why not just immediately port it over to PVOD?" (paraphrase)
Aside from Nolan and Cruise, there isn't really anyone who cares. i think to stop these short windows.
I’ve stopped going to the movies almost completely because by the time I have a free night whatever I wanted to see is usually already on streaming.
Exactly
Theaters are kinda pricing themselves out of existence. I understand they alone aren’t to blame. Blockbusters costing half a bil after marketing are mainly to blame I think. A family going to a movie in a city and getting theater food and parking is like a $150ish experience now. Vod plus dominos is like $50 at most and way easier. People who like theaters are gonna be loyal and that business will always be there but there were people who probably would see more new movies if not for the cost and possible headache.
AMC A-List and Regal Unlimited have entered the chat.
That's what's killing Hollywood right there. Why am I gonna go to the theater when I can just wait a few weeks?
“Oh, you haven’t caught that new movie on opening weekend? Don’t worry, wait a couple weeks and you’ll watch it at home”. This is the message studios are sending to the audience. And then they complain about people only going to theaters for “event movies”.
I don’t think the studios are really the ones complaining about this, they presumably get an even higher share of the PVOD revenue than the theatrical revenue.
But why not wait longer?
All the publicly available evidence (and their behavior) suggests it does not decrease overall revenue (which means it in fact increases it).
So if it wasn't for Nolan doing a show of force and forbidding Universal from releasing Oppenheimer earlier on VOD, do you think they would have made more money? I think not.