I asked it as an example question and the overwhelming majority of my post was not about that. I disagree with you it was the exception: it's one of the models the industry uses. But fine, was The Irishman (won academy award) a hit or flop?I posted a link ages ago which included Knives out.
It was referenced along with two other movies Netflix paid 160 million and 200 million for. They're the exception not the rule.
There is no data on any of that. We truly do not have those numbers as even vaguely firm answers.The typical moviegoers 3-5 million dollars on streaming (they're bought in bundles). Indie movies can get less than 100 000. They're also movies primarily for steaming.
Knives Out was also a hit at the cinema so in essence Netflix had to pay to make up for the lack of box office for the future ones. Since they were going to primarily be streaming. Knives out also was a lot cheaper than HAT.
You mean the part about me saying we don't have that data? You don't need to guess: we don't have that data.So if you have any evidence Netflix or anyone else paid top dollar for D&D please present it. I'm guessing you don't have it.
I don't think anyone's gonna pay top dollar for a box office flop. The box office performance leaves a hole nig enough a streamer has to pay top dollar for HAT.
This doesn't answer 90% of what I said. It sure feels like you were trying to score a point (and not a good one) without grappling with the issue being presented.Not so long ago, the only way you could enjoy movies from your home was to buy a home video release or wait for the movie to come to TV. Now, by then, thefictionhorizon.com
Budget 40 million.
Box Office 311million
Knives Out was a box office hit Netflix paid top dollar for it. Over 100 million would have flowed back to the studio.HAT 100 million+ flowing out.
It's not. That is my entire point. NOBODY in the industry is using that formula anymore, because it's missing a major component of profits. For some movies, whatever it makes at box office is considered purely bonus money and it makes ALL of its money back from streaming. Nothing about that formula is "still valid" for this kind of question given how much it is missing.The formula is still valid for comparing box office results against the cost.
And the pandemic is over (I mean, not really, but most people act like it is). Streaming services are not quite as hot. Paramount has a library of their own but if D&D is exclusive to their much smaller streaming service than maybe not as much revenue there.
Do you think that streaming is really going to cover the pretty large hole that HAT will be in?
Maybe $200M global box office (call it $100M to the studio) compared to estimates of $150M cost plus $100M marketing. Even if the marketing is $50M, that is a $100M hole.
I think “box office flop” is guaranteed. What is your guess in tne rest of the revenue?
BTW - this strike is about resetting formulas but the extreme of 100% streaming for Black Widow are quickly going behind us. Streaming exclusives are known much more in advance now. So your point is a little stretched.
I asked it as an example question and the overwhelming majority of my post was not about that. I disagree with you it was the exception: it's one of the models the industry uses. But fine, was The Irishman (won academy award) a hit or flop?
There is no data on any of that. We truly do not have those numbers as even vaguely firm answers.
Why are you focusing on that minor question I asked when the overwhelming majority of my post had nothing to do with that? NONE of what I posted was predicated on that example. The point, which you are dodging, is a huge component of movie production budgets and profit margins is now based on streaming data we don't have. Nothing you've said answers that in any way.
You mean the part about me saying we don't have that data? You don't need to guess: we don't have that data.
HOWEVER the people who do have access to that data are saying the movie is a hit. And to counter that you're saying you disagree based on you...not having the data on streaming so counting it as $0.
Truly, what you think about this topic as an amateur on the outside is irrelevant to that question. The studio seems to think it's a hit right now and THEY have that data, and also happen to be A STREAMING PLATFORM.
This doesn't answer 90% of what I said. It sure feels like you were trying to score a point (and not a good one) without grappling with the issue being presented.
Again in sum: we know for sure a very meaningful portion of what is considered profit for a movie being made today is streaming revenue. That is a major component now of the formula. You counted it as $0. We know that's a badly inaccurate estimate given that. So why do you continue to use the old outdated formula you know for sure isn't giving you a good estimate?
hit <> financial success, for that you just need to make enough money to break even.
Every single D&D book is tied to the movie. That's the brand choice they made and it's fueling strong search, strong sales, strong licensing and strong merch.
Paramount and Hasbro knew what the likely BO for a D&D movie would be around, and they overspent because of other economic factors. Paramount got a $150M movie for $75M in theatres and later on P+. Hasbro got a level of brand recognition for D&D that can't be bought with ads.
Paramount has recovered the investment in less 30 days, hasn't it? This is a good sign those doors aren't going to be closed.
Nah not a flop just not a hit. Merch sales seem to be great
Yes. I absolutely believe that (and it's not that large a hole at all). And I believe that because the people who have access to all the data seem to all think that's the case.
I don't have access to the relevant data, much like you do not. So I am making no guess, and purely going off what the studio seems to think.