271–280 of 523 posts
Finally, I get to try Netflix, I thought. I signed up for the HD plan, I went to my playback settings, changed quality to high and decided to watch Pacific Rim. http://i.imgur.com/LKEcMDo.png Let's just say, it doesn't look like Netflix will be successful to convert me to streaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do…
Force Awakens is probably not a great example though. Maybe we'll see smaller budget moves jump on Netflix, while traditional big-budget blockbusters scramble to find an alternative release method? Also: > Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great. From what I hear, that's not true, but it's all hidden through magical "Hollywood accounting" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting )
Absolutely, but that's nothing new. We had direct-to-video or direct-to-tv movies for decades. Direct-to-streaming isn't really that disruptive. What we don't have is big budget movies bypassing theaters, because why would they? Why wouldn't they have theatre run, and then a streaming/video/TV run?
What is missing in a lot of these comments is acknowledging that Netflix may become the largest global "television" network in the world as adoption increases. They have original content lined up and control those rights, and they will continue to expand their reach with that content. Whether they add the "same" streaming content as they have purchased from other providers in the US is not the point here - the big im…
Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or…
"Live showings" with restricted hours doesn't make sense to me either. This sounds like artificially replicating the limitiations of cinema but throwing away all its advantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised someone considers Crimea a country. I thought it was part of Ukraine, and now is part of Russia. Or if you dispute that, it is still a part of Ukraine.
First another country takes control over the place you live, then the US government bans everyone from letting you participate in global trade. I guess the same thing happened in Cuba.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm of the belief that the better actors are paid far too much The market decides these things. It's difficult to argue that there isn't enough profit on a movie that has grossed over 1.5 billion dollars in three weeks to pay A-list actors A-list salaries. A-list actors don't make that kind of money because movie studios are generous. They make it because their presence puts butts in seats. Sure, the "Star Wars" name…
Would the movie have lost more than the amount they paid him, though? I'm pretty sure they could have released a blank tape on the screen, called it Star Wars 7, and made several hundred million dollars. Its hard to approximate the amount of sales exclusively to the presence of a specific actor, versus the reviews, ratings, and social response to good acting.
In three weeks, that is over 15 million dollars just where it's been released so far. Think about China and the rest of Asia. Think about on demand viewing and DVD/Blu-Ray.
As I said, we don't know for sure but it's a pretty safe bet that Ford, Fisher and Hamil being a part of this movie will pay for itself in increased revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do…
Someone has already mentioned Hollywood Accounting. Also Netflix gets $10 a month from me. $120 for a year. Double what I spend at the cinema. And I don't watch big budget movies all the time. I can see them getting customers to keep paying the monthly subscription for the cheaper to make content and then they have enough money left over to film a few huge movies every year. Especially if they use relatively unknown…
Which means you're spending $180 on movies per year. $120 for a legacy catalogue of hundreds of movies, and $60 for six new releases. So why would they give up that extra $60?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sure used to be able to go there for specific movies. I understand why it's not the case anymore, but I miss what it was.
Are you comparing the DVD service to streaming? It's unfortunately apples and oranges; the licensing is completely different for DVD and streaming, and even different between unlimited streaming like Netflix vs. pay-per-view streaming you can get from multiple other sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do…
The margins in Hollywood are actually really great. It's the accounting that makes them seem like a break even business. Less 'profit' means fewer points that have to be paid out from net. A $200 million film that grosses a billion worldwide.. Those margins aren't bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? I assume that the distribution of films around the world is more limited than we think. At some point when Netflix has a much larger subscriber base, it may make more sense for films to be released directly to Netflix for global consumption. They could even be clever about it and have it only open for "live showings" at specific hours or…
If "disrupting cinema" in this context means abandoning cinema altogether and switching the big screen with a regular HD TV, then I as a consumer hope this future won't happen. "Live showings" with restricted hours doesn't make sense to me either. This sounds like artificially replicating the limitiations of cinema but throwing away all its advantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe a stupid questions but what if they disrupted not just TV but also cinema? They are trying. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 is being released simultaneously in theaters and on Netflix. Some chains complained and are refusing to show it. But honestly, I don't see it. Cinema is $10-15/person/visit, and Netflix is $10/mo for an entire library of content. Profit margins for Hollywood aren't that great - so how do…
Don't you think that the humongous scale of Netflix customers combined with the ease of access will compensate for that? For ex: (10 million movie-goers * $10 tkt price =$100 m rev) (100 million Netflix users * $1(considering that Force Awakens title in Netflix library is being accessed by 1/10th of total library and N'flix is paying Star Wars accordingly) =$100 m)