D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[Zardnaar]

Well Paramounts numbers came in. They're losing money and share price took a massive hit.

I think the argument about making millions on streaming is when you're selling your content to someone else. Making it yourself for yourself you're setting money on fire.

Basically Sony. In an arms race become the arms dealer.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Yes, but Phantom Menace was the most anticipated movie of all time. There really aren't any lessons to learn about marketing (for or against) there, since it's the biggest outlier possible.

And Lucasfilm did the whole weird Shadows of the Empire roll out in 1996 as basically a dry run for marketing a Star Wars movie in the late 90s, with a novel, video game, soundtrack album, toys, concept art book, comic book, and other merchandise. Basically everything that comes with a Star Wars movie except the actual movie. And the special edition rereleases of the original films in '97 were partly to drum up more anticipation for Phantom Menace (and raise Star Wars awareness in a few developing markets where it had not previously been a major release).

So I think there are lessons about marketing that can be taken, but if so they are to have a careful 5 year plan of marketing hype leading into your major movie release in an already beloved franchise. Not only did Phantom Menace not have to buy a whole lot of advertising, but most the things effectively done to build hype for Phantom Menace were themselves profitable. Hollywood rarely has the patience to demonstrate that sort of business acumen.

 

[payn]

Well Paramounts numbers came in. They're losing money and share price took a massive hit.

I think the argument about making millions on streaming is when you're selling your content to someone else. Making it yourself for yourself you're setting money on fire.

Basically Sony. In an arms race become the arms dealer.

"Paramount should've listened to their cousin Sony. They said, 'Paramount, I've got one word for you: content.' No one ever went broke selling content. But did Paramount take their advice? No. So now, Sony owns their own moon. And Paramount is staring into the stock market abyss."

 

[Zardnaar]

And Lucasfilm did the whole weird Shadows of the Empire roll out in 1996 as basically a dry run for marketing a Star Wars movie in the late 90s, with a novel, video game, soundtrack album, toys, concept art book, comic book, and other merchandise. Basically everything that comes with a Star Wars movie except the actual movie. And the special edition rereleases of the original films in '97 were partly to drum up more anticipation for Phantom Menace (and raise Star Wars awareness in a few developing markets where it had not previously been a major release).

So I think there are lessons about marketing that can be taken, but if so they are to have a careful 5 year plan of marketing hype leading into your major movie release in an already beloved franchise. Not only did Phantom Menace not have to buy a whole lot of advertising, but most the things effectively done to build hype for Phantom Menace were themselves profitable. Hollywood rarely has the patience to demonstrate that sort of business acumen.

I think own the Shadows of the Empire novel, rpg source book. My Prince Xizor t shirt died long ago the game was a bit pants.

 

[R_J_K75]

For me the tone was too light. Felt like Guardians of the Galaxy cut and pasted

 

[Mistwell]

I think the argument about making millions on streaming is when you're selling your content to someone else. Making it yourself for yourself you're setting money on fire.

LOL no? How does that make sense in any way? If they sell it for $19 to stream (which they are) how is that...setting money on fire? And did you think other companies buy it to sell it for nothing?

 

[Zardnaar]

For me the tone was too light. Felt like Guardians of the Galaxy cut and pasted

LOL no? How does that make sense in any way? If they sell it for $19 to stream (which they are) how is that...setting money on fire? And did you think other companies buy it to sell it for nothing?

That's video on demand.

Knives out was used as an example earlier. Netflix paid big money to aquire it as sequels and knives out was a massive hit relative to its budget.

Paramount paid half of the production costs and basically gain nothing from streaming rights. No one's paying them money to stream HAT. If one sub division pays another it's still Paramount at the end of the day. In effect they're competing with themselves.

That leaves VOD and first cluck metrics for additional streaming income you can directly measure.

 

[bedir than]

Paramount paid half of the production costs and basically gain nothing from streaming rights. No one's paying them money to stream HAT. If one sub division pays another it's still Paramount at the end of the day. In effect they're competing with themselves.

This is dramatically and factually incorrect.

You know this. Yet you repeat it, constantly.

People pay between 5-20$ a month for Paramount+. They do so expecting content like Star Trek, the NWSL, CSI. Paramount gets money for that content.

It is frightening to have something this basic be ignored.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is dramatically and factually incorrect.

You know this. Yet you repeat it, constantly.

People pay between 5-20$ a month for Paramount+. They do so expecting content like Star Trek, the NWSL, CSI. Paramount gets money for that content.

It is frightening to have something this basic be ignored.

And they're paying that money independent of HAT.

I posted a link earlier about first click metrics.

And Paramounts also losing money on streaming btw. 500 odd million AFAIK.

 

[mamba]

Knives out was used as an example earlier. Netflix paid big money to aquire it as sequels and knives out was a massive hit relative to its budget.

how big a hit it is for Netflix at a purchase price of 400M is another question however

Paramount paid half of the production costs and basically gain nothing from streaming rights. No one's paying them money to stream HAT.

Paramount+ is, it’s not like they would get more if they gave it to a third party

If one sub division pays another it's still Paramount at the end of the day. In effect they're competing with themselves.

not competing, vertical integration

Paramount is competing with whoever in the theatres, Paramount+ is competing with other streaming services.

The wins have the potential to get bigger, and so do the losses, because you can have either all the way, instead of in one ‘layer’ only. I doubt Paramount would make more money from HAT if they sold it to another service however.