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

[Zardnaar]

Except that they aren't functionally the same, especially in the case where the streaming service is owned by one of the production companies.

Paramount makes more money off of their streaming service than they do the UK stream on Netflix for example.

Plus, the pricing is just different. One is a subscription model where the studio wants to establish the habit of purchase that can wind up with perpetual spend and the other is a single purchase.

There's no evidence that Hasbro spent 60 mill on advertising. They did spend something, but that would be more than their entire ad spend on every one of their Wizards properties in a given year. That's highly unlikely.
Also, eOne only had distribution rights in Canada and the UK. Why would they spend money to turn Paramount a profit. Their purpose for the film was different.

1 - the "half to the studios" number has been disproven extensively within this thread. It keeps getting repeated because people keep forgetting about the pandemic-caused shift in revenues.
2 - a vast majority of that went to Paramount, as they had the distro rights in all but two nations.
3 - Paramount is probably in the hole ~50 million or so and it is likely they've made that up in VoD+Streaming, since they have those rights AND Honor Among Thieves remains more popular on digital platforms than movies that crushed it in the box office.

You were tge one who supplied 60+ million on marketing. May have been on one of your links.

And yes marketing campaigns do cost that much. It's one reason movies are bombing lately along with under reporting production costs.


They've been spending 200-300 million on movies plus 100+ million on marketing. Eg dial of Destiny.

Said movies have been bringing in 200-500/600 million (or less). Only around 50-55% goes back to the studio on average.

Hasbros in the hole for around 25 million, Paramount 75 million possibly more.

 

[nevin]

You rented it. Mario's streaming debut, per their studio is on Peacock in August.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie Will Stream Exclusively on Peacock

Great news! Even as The Super Mario Bros. Movie continues to break box office records across the globe, Peacock announced that it will be exclusively streaming the star-studded animated film beginning Aug 3.

www.peacocktv.com

ok but it's still streaming when you rent it.

 

[Hex08]

You rented it. Mario's streaming debut, per their studio is on Peacock in August.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie Will Stream Exclusively on Peacock

Great news! Even as The Super Mario Bros. Movie continues to break box office records across the globe, Peacock announced that it will be exclusively streaming the star-studded animated film beginning Aug 3.

www.peacocktv.com

So you believe he rented it on Prime without watching it?

Streaming allows users to watch or listen to media over the internet without downloading it. Renting, or VOD, is paying to stream a specific movie or TV show rather than having it included in the cost of some streaming service. It's all streaming, the difference is how you pay for it.

 

[bedir than]

So you believe he rented it on Prime without watching it?

No. I'm just using the precise language as pertains to various income options for movies in the modern context. This allows us to make some assumptions about income when various movies release their revenue via streaming/VoD/physical/etc

 

[nevin]

STREAMING includes rentals. If you watch it without a physical copy it's streaming even in the precicise contractual language of Hollywood's contracts. It's also included in income because they get money for it.

 

[bedir than]

STREAMING includes rentals. If you watch it without a physical copy it's streaming even in the precicise contractual language of Hollywood's contracts. It's also included in income because they get money for it.

Except that they track streaming separately because those that pay to rent are paying a one-time fee whereas those who pay for a streaming package are paying regularly for months upon months in a subscription model (that's also less precisely tied to revenue).

 

[Zardnaar]

Except that they track streaming separately because those that pay to rent are paying a one-time fee whereas those who pay for a streaming package are paying regularly for months upon months in a subscription model (that's also less precisely tied to revenue).

Streaming revenue is very opaque one reason for the strikes. Throw in Hollywood accounting.

Very little residual vs older content. On example was some modest TV show with supporting actor they got $4000 of residuals vs a hit streaming show a d they got less tha $100.

The streamers have been burning through investor money and that's starting to hurt as losses are mounting.

Netflix is the exception and apparently Sony is a bit of a winner as they're not steaming themselves. In an arms race sell weapons don't join in.

If I was going to do a steaming service I don't think I would do movies beyond the bundled pack deals ($3-5 million per movie).

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Here I would like to mark a point. The potential value of the brand as cinematographic franchise. If we compare with other titles, Paramount has been enough lucky to be a bomb like others. I mean a sequel or spin-off of HaT is an easier or safer option than starting from zero with an unknown franchise.

I suspect this is going to be a horrible year for Hollywood, with a lot of troubles. Maybe if it was necessary Paramount could produce a spin-off with an European team.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here I would like to mark a point. The potential value of the brand as cinematographic franchise. If we compare with other titles, Paramount has been enough lucky to be a bomb like others. I mean a sequel or spin-off of HaT is an easier or safer option than starting from zero with an unknown franchise.

I suspect this is going to be a horrible year for Hollywood, with a lot of troubles. Maybe if it was necessary Paramount could produce a spin-off with an European team.

It's gard to monetize potential though.

200 million woud be a decent result if the movie was a lot cheaper eg Scream 6.

I think WotC has over valued "the brand" when it comes to general audiences.

 

[Hex08]

No. I'm just using the precise language as pertains to various income options for movies in the modern context. This allows us to make some assumptions about income when various movies release their revenue via streaming/VoD/physical/etc

I don't doubt that streaming as part of a subscription service versus VOD can let us make assumptions about income generated. However, I'm not sure you are using "precise language", I think you are making errors in your language usage. Streaming, as I pointed out before, is delivering media over the internet without downloading it. VOD/renting is streaming media that you have paid for to access for a set amount of time. Both are streaming, the difference is how you pay for them.