Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not sure about your point. can you point out where I said co-productions don't exist? If a film costs 100M to make or a film costs 200M to make but is split by two studios is there a difference? what if it is a cheap 1M film t0o make. what is spent is all over the place. The point is production, advertisement.... all need to be paid up front.

You never mentioned co-production in your post. I took your use of "they" as the studio responsible for the content in question.

Originally Posted by Anthony P
I don't know about that the issue with content is that it is high cashflow industry. They need to spend a lot of money to make the content and then they need to try and make it back as soon as possible so they have the money to make the next piece of content.

Who ever owned the right for the fist films licensed on Netflix streaming would have been very hard pressed to say "No, my crystal ball says nothing good will come from this". My point was simply studios could not afford to worry about what people will be saying in 2023 back in 2007.

I agree. Streaming was in its infancy. You had Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Hulu and Sony. The deal that ignited Netflix as a streamer was with Starz back in 2008.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

nice we did the traditional turkey on Saturday with the wife's side of the family. I did not want to make two turkeys so yesterday I did a couple of chickens and pork loin using the rotisserie of my BBQ (finished up with some pineapples on the rotisserie)


PS for those that don't know what we are talking and are curious, here in canada Thanks giving is the second Monday of October (i.e. today) so a long weekend

LOL... My Dad celebrates the US holiday...It used to drive him crazy when I would point out that it was first celebrated in Canada... almost as much as me pointing out that baseball was played in Beachville Ontario 2 full years before Abner Doubleday supposedly invented the game ..... or that we invented football

Anyway, EVERYTHING turned out perfectly yesterday... so much so that between the chardonay and L-tryptophan... Everyone packed it in early for the night.. HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U will have to wait LOL..

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

that we invented football

we did not invent football, football really started in the UK long before our continent got discovered. but like a lot of sports in their infancy people had to go over rules when they got together because there where no governing bodies. In the 1800's in the UK a bunch of clubs decided to get together and created and association of clubs to formalize rules called "association football" and they became more commonly known as soccer for short or just football in the UK. Rugby did not join the association and gave rise to Rugby football in the UK (now usualy just called rugby since football is mor eoften used for soccer). That is why there is Canadian football, US football and Australian football (also some times called Aussie rules) in different areas of the old British colonies different forms and rules for football got formalized.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

we did not invent football, football really started in the UK long before our continent got discovered. but like a lot of sports in their infancy people had to go over rules when they got together because there where no governing bodies. In the 1800's in the UK a bunch of clubs decided to get together and created and association of clubs to formalize rules called "association football" and they became more commonly known as soccer for short or just football in the UK. Rugby did not join the association and gave rise to Rugby football in the UK (now usualy just called rugby since football is mor eoften used for soccer). That is why there is Canadian football, US football and Australian football (also some times called Aussie rules) in different areas of the old British colonies different forms and rules for football got formalized.

It's the implementation of "downs" that differentiates what north american's consider football from rugby...that happened in your neck of the woods at McGill..

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

we did not invent football, football really started in the UK long before our continent got discovered. but like a lot of sports in their infancy people had to go over rules when they got together because there where no governing bodies. In the 1800's in the UK a bunch of clubs decided to get together and created and association of clubs to formalize rules called "association football" and they became more commonly known as soccer for short or just football in the UK. Rugby did not join the association and gave rise to Rugby football in the UK (now usualy just called rugby since football is mor eoften used for soccer). That is why there is Canadian football, US football and Australian football (also some times called Aussie rules) in different areas of the old British colonies different forms and rules for football got formalized.

Yes, my club (SAFC) Sunderland Association football club dominated the first 40 years of the game, winning 6 league titles in that time (and 1 FA cup).

[bhampton]

My favorite NFL team is whoever is playing against the Dallas Cowboys.

I'm not very into it anymore though. I like to see good teams play well and there's a lot of floundering teams around these days. Very talented players make it fun to watch on occasion.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by bhampton

My favorite NFL team is whoever is playing against the Dallas Cowboys.

You don't like America's Team! I Love Football, but it wasn't until I became a Bachelor living with my Brother he was a Bachelor too. Sat me down in front of a TV and gave me a Beer, said this is what we do now watch Football and drink Beer. We lived in the Bay Area, but were raised in LA so the Rams were our Team. Of course all our friends were 49er Fans, what a Great Time we had. My Teams are the Rams, 49ers, and Raiders. 49ers are strong this year and will go to the Super Bowl, and probably Win!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You don't like America's Team! I Love Football, but it wasn't until I became a Bachelor living with my Brother he was a Bachelor too. Sat me down in front of a TV and gave me a Beer, said this is what we do now watch Football and drink Beer. We lived in the Bay Area, but were raised in LA so the Rams were our Team. Of course all our friends were 49er Fans, what a Great Time we had. My Teams are the Rams, 49ers, and Raiders. 49ers are strong this year and will go to the Super Bowl, and probably Win!

You have more than one team? That’s unthinkable for football (soccer) in U.K. we stick to our own town or city unless we are glory hunters (I’m not).

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You have more than one team? That’s unthinkable for football (soccer) in U.K. we stick to our own town or city unless we are glory hunters (I’m not).

It's USA, we're all about the glory!

[oak table]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

What's up with Redbox? They haven't had a new Blu-ray there since about mid-August.

I have been an avid Redbox renter since 2018, renting almost weekly. Yes, since August Redbox has only stocked 3 or 4 movies. I haven't reached out to them to find out what is going on. I expected them to pick up Jennifer Lawrence's new release, No Hard Feelings, but absolutely nothing.

About two weeks ago a press release about Redbox picking up catalog titles made its way to a few different news sites, but nothing.

Perhaps Redbox is running out of cash, and cannot afford to purchase many new titles, even on DVD. The next big title Redbox will carry is Barbie on Oct 17th.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

It's USA, we're all about the glory!

It’s tribal here, wouldn’t dream of doing that.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Obtuse huh? Those production companies get paid from the proceeds of the theater run. They do not get any money when that movie goes on home entertainment. And THAT is where the studio makes its money - almost all of the time.



Jason Kilar, the CEO of WarnerMedia used that tactic to increase the sub count of HBOMax. But once again you present a Strawman Argument that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted - congrats!.

No it isn't. They are investing. If the studios continuously short change them by putting out half assed theatre releases or streaming too quickly and therefore lose money theatrically, those companies won't continue to invest. Seems obvious to me.

And from conventional streaming the studios make nothing on the film, or at least you can't say with any certainty what a film brought in. I don't think one division of the company paying another counts as "making money." From licencing and advertising that sort of thing can be tracked.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by t-mel

No it isn't. They are investing. If the studios continuously short change them by putting out half assed theatre releases or streaming too quickly and therefore lose money theatrically, those companies won't continue to invest. Seems obvious to me.

The Ugly Truth About Section 181 Tax Deduction For Filmmakers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuyle...h=519cce614561

And from conventional streaming the studios make nothing on the film, or at least you can't say with any certainty what a film brought in. I don't think one division of the company paying another counts as "making money." From licencing and advertising that sort of thing can be tracked.

Streaming gets exposure for the film. It will then enter money making revenue streams like PAY-TV, merchandising, digital and physical sales, linear TV etc.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The Ugly Truth About Section 181 Tax Deduction For Filmmakers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuyle...h=519cce614561



Streaming gets exposure for the film. It will then enter money making revenue streams like PAY-TV, merchandising, digital and physical sales, linear TV etc.

Exposure? Most streaming movies are watch then forget. The folk who subscribe to these services aren’t buying discs, nor are they buying digital. They like the all you can eat model.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Streaming gets exposure for the film. It will then enter money making revenue streams like PAY-TV, merchandising, digital and physical sales, linear TV etc.

There are plenty of movies and shows that are exclusively available on one streaming service and can't be bought or rented anywhere else. How will they lead to money making revenue streams when there is no way for anyone to spend money on them.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

There are plenty of movies and shows that are exclusively available on one streaming service and can't be bought or rented anywhere else. How will they lead to money making revenue streams when there is no way for anyone to spend money on them.

The discussion concerned theatrical movies - not made for streamer movies.

[mng]

Originally Posted by deatheats

I’ve met multiple people who are virulently anti-disc. Most of the anger appears to revolve around a couple of notions. One, that we’ve surpassed needing to have media on physical formats since the advent of streaming and view it as a technological relic. And two, that owning movies in a physical format is a waste of space & money.

I have physical copies of everything.
They will still work when I cancel the streaming services.
And better quality too

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by mng

I have physical copies of everything.
They will still work when I cancel the streaming services.
And better quality too

Absolutely.

The difference between a physical copy and streaming is with the physical you watch your movie and with online you try to get permission to watch someone else's movie.

Some people don't like things but in the end that leaves you with nothing. I'm glad I have space for all my things but If I didn't have any space then trying to save money on movie rentals would not be what I was focusing on.

The quality alone should be what makes people want Physical Media.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Absolutely.

The difference between a physical copy and streaming is with the physical you watch your movie and with online you try to get permission to watch someone else's movie.

Some people don't like things but in the end that leaves you with nothing. I'm glad I have space for all my things but If I didn't have any space then trying to save money on movie rentals would not be what I was focusing on.

The quality alone should be what makes people want Physical Media.

It was sad to see previous hardcore collectors abandon the format for digital. Excuses such as ‘I don’t have to get up’ killed me. Like getting up and using muscles and getting blood pumping is a bad thing.

Digital hasn’t really worked out and I simply wouldn’t feel secure having a digital locker that can be abandoned in the future. Plus, owning disc means we have uncut films, goodness knows what will offend people in 5 years. Probably farting and breathing.

[Ender14]

I watched The Exorcist: Believer the other day. I enjoyed the first 2 DGG Halloween movies but loathed Halloween Ends. I was hoping The Exorcist would be a return to form for DGG but it ended up possibly being worse than Ends. Truly an awful continuation of the original and just a generally terrible movie. If Blumhouse wants to have any chance of salvaging the trilogy with the next 2 then they to replace DGG immediately. He should be kept FAR away from horror franchises for the rest of his career.