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

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by bhampton

It should be illegal to watch movies like that on bad systems. Same for No Time to Die. If you watched that on your phone or a plane you didn't get the experience you only got a part of it.

My entire iTunes library (1252) is 5TB. Most HD iTunes movies would fit on a DVD (under 2 GB)

I watched both DUNE and THE NORTHMAN on VOD first before eventually buying both discs. All screenings were done in the same system. I sit 9 feet away from a 130" A/T scope screen with a 7.4.4 ATMOS sound system enhanced with tactile transducers built into my chairs. I was blown away by the streams when I saw them and was then even MORE blown away by the disc presentations that followed

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Always around the corner.

Always a snide remark

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Please cite the quote so we can all read it and draw our own conclusions.

I am supposed to quote something they did not say in Q1 about Q2? the point is there are three possibilities
1) I missed them saying it.
2) they new it will have massive losses due to ever increasing costs but they kept it quiet to pretend they will be profitable in 2024
3) the guy making their predictions can't predict 3 months in advance how good can they be 2 years in advance?

Doesn't Disney use AWS (Amazon) to host their streaming services? I know others do. What those deals consist of - they are not made public.

yes Amazon that is why it is not an investment for Disney but a cost.

I did not ask you to tell us the exact amount they pay, I asked a simple question based on what I believe is your past experience. If Disney adds a lot of users obviously the revenue will go up by alot but what happens to the costs won't they also go up by a lot?

Business 101 - More $ on the Credit side of the balance sheet than the Debit side = Profit.

yes and they have losses because more on the debit side than credit what is your point?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am supposed to quote something they did not say in Q1 about Q2? the point is there are three possibilities
1) I missed them saying it.
2) they new it will have massive losses due to ever increasing costs but they kept it quiet to pretend they will be profitable in 2024
3) the guy making their predictions can't predict 3 months in advance how good can they be 2 years in advance?

Oh - just rampant speculation - got it

yes Amazon that is why it is not an investment for Disney but a cost.

Disney+ is an investment. No two ways about it. You are also forgetting they now do business directly with the consumer. Every Disney+ account gives up an email address. I get countless emails from them offerring merchandise especially at the end of the year. I don't have to tell you how much of a cornerstone merchandising is as a profit center for Disney.

I did not ask you to tell us the exact amount they pay, I asked a simple question based on what I believe is your past experience. If Disney adds a lot of users obviously the revenue will go up by alot but what happens to the costs won't they also go up by a lot?

Like I said - we are not priviledged to know what their deal is with AWS. Without that information it would be nothing but guessing. And no - it doesn't always work that more end users means higher costs.

My personal experience comes from Mainframe Computing - not Servers which is what AWS is using. That's a lot different then 3000 people using a single computer.

yes and they have losses because more on the debit side than credit what is your point?

That is today. And well known as it was made clear when they held their first Disney+ Day.

The only way to "hatch" a profitable streaming service from Day One is to go AVOD: Ad sponsored.

EDIT:

OBTW - Disney bought BAM-TECH outright before they started Disney+. That's the software platform that makes Disney+ streaming possible.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Oh - just rampant speculation - got it





Disney+ is an investment. No two ways about it. You are also forgetting they now do business directly with the consumer. Every Disney+ account gives up an email address. I get countless emails from them offerring merchandise especially at the end of the year. I don't have to tell you how much of a cornerstone merchandising is as a profit center for Disney.



Like I said - we are not priviledged to know what their deal is with AWS. Without that information it would be nothing but guessing. And no - it doesn't always work that more end users means higher costs.

My personal experience comes from Mainframe Computing - not Servers which is what AWS is using. That's a lot different then 3000 people using a single computer.



That is today. And well known as it was made clear when they held their first Disney+ Day.

The only way to "hatch" a profitable streaming service from Day One is to go AVOD: Ad sponsored.

EDIT:

OBTW - Disney bought BAM-TECH outright before they started Disney+. That's the software platform that makes Disney+ streaming possible.

AVOD is just cable phase 2. So much for an exciting future.

For the record, Disney doesn’t represent quality like they used to imo. I think 60% of the tv shows are poor fan fiction and soulless.

As soon as TWD is finished, i’m getting rid.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

AVOD is just cable phase 2. So much for an exciting future.

Many of the AVODs are free. When was cable ever free?

For the record, Disney doesn’t represent quality like they used to imo. I think 60% of the tv shows are poor fan fiction and soulless.

As soon as TWD is finished, i’m getting rid.

Like you said . . . in your opinion.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Many of the AVODs are free. When was cable ever free?



Like you said . . . in your opinion.

Disney isn’t going to be free though. Neither is the likes of HBO or Netflix. The big boys so to speak.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Disney isn’t going to be free though. Neither is the likes of HBO or Netflix. The big boys so to speak.

To a certain extent you are correct. For the first time, consumers can pay for what they want and only what they want - not what the cables companies want them to have.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Many of the AVODs are free. When was cable ever free?

If you are using the internet, someone is paying for it

And you pay for it via the ads which is pollution for your brain.

I think Disney+ is the best streaming service. .. but that's not saying much when you consider it's competition.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

For the first time, consumers can pay for what they want and only what they want - not what the cables companies want them to have.

Buying content on disc is paying for what you want and only what you want. So ... it would be for the second time. These discs things still exist with plenty of new releases.

There's so much on D+, for example, that I don't want so what you are saying makes no sense anyhow.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

To a certain extent you are correct. For the first time, consumers can pay for what they want and only what they want - not what the cables companies want them to have.

Not really when desirable content is spread between six or seven services. It becomes nearly as expensive as cable in that case.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Not really when desirable content is spread between six or seven services. It becomes nearly as expensive as cable in that case.

Each individual decides what they are willing to spend. That's freedom of choice - the best. When I had cable years ago, I was paying for 100+ channels of which I only watched less than 10. But I was charged for all those 100 channels.

It's not hard to curb your desires and limit yourself to 3 or 4 core services like Disney+ or Netflix. Then for no charge you get Pluto or Tubi or FilmRise. If that doesn't satisfy your needs - maybe those needs should be looked at.

Plus - you can cancel anytime and pick up a new core service. Your cash outlay stays pretty much the same and you get all new content.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Each individual decides what they are willing to spend. That's freedom of choice - the best. When I had cable years ago, I was paying for 100+ channels of which I only watched less than 10. But I was charged for all those 100 channels.

It's not hard to curb your desires and limit yourself to 3 or 4 core services like Disney+ or Netflix. Then for no charge you get Pluto or Tubi or FilmRise. If that doesn't satisfy your needs - maybe those needs should be looked at.

Plus - you can cancel anytime and pick up a new core service. Your cash outlay stays pretty much the same and you get all new content.

A few services are going to fold in the next several years. We will find out how much more we have to pay when the remaining services buy out the failed ones.

Plus, Amazon are getting into sport in a big way, if you can’t see where this is all going, I don’t know what to tell you.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Each individual decides what they are willing to spend. That's freedom of choice - the best. When I had cable years ago, I was paying for 100+ channels of which I only watched less than 10. But I was charged for all those 100 channels.

It's not hard to curb your desires and limit yourself to 3 or 4 core services like Disney+ or Netflix. Then for no charge you get Pluto or Tubi or FilmRise. If that doesn't satisfy your needs - maybe those needs should be looked at.

Plus - you can cancel anytime and pick up a new core service. Your cash outlay stays pretty much the same and you get all new content.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the same go for those who subscribe to Netflix? You pay for access to stream all their content, even if you only watch say 10 shows?

[crutzulee]

I think the root of everyone's disagreement here is that everyone thinks that there is some ENDGAME that we are heading towards. This kind of thing has always been, and always will be, fluid.

The guys that are holding on to their physical media and hand wringing about corporate baddies eventually taking away their ability to watch some rare title or trying to make them play per pay are not necessarily wrong. They've tried (DiVX) before and will try again.

Those that think that physical media is dead should read a Mark Twain quote or two. At present, both streaming and physical disc seem to be meeting our entertainment needs quite nicely. Not every title deserves a UHD (much to the chagrin of the one guy that thinks the excluded title is the pinacle of theatrical artistry).

I have a few rare Laserdiscs literally lying on the floor of my HT. I believe some of these titles have never made it to Bluray let alone UHD. Some have argued that the soundtracks on some of these discs are better than anything that's appeared on newer media. Other's argue that my original STAR WARS LDs are the best versions of the films...I wouldn't know because I gave away my players years ago. The discs are probably rotted to hell because I didn't store them in a humador...LOL...

My son rips every disc that shows up at my door and stores them in his closet. The bit perfect movies automagically appear in the posterwall on my ZIDOO player. I don't have to sit through menus, trailers or FBI warnings. I don't have to worry about how disc shelves affect how I treat my room for the best sound and picture. I have the best of both worlds RIGHT NOW....but even if the discs are not prone to rot, I will probably not have a player that will play them in the future....and my future digital solution will probably not play the file formats that I'm currently using...

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

To a certain extent you are correct. For the first time, consumers can pay for what they want and only what they want - not what the cables companies want them to have.

That's why I've always said that paying for streaming services over standard cable subscription is a better value. I'm the curator, even if I have to pay a bit more overall for all of my services per month/year, I am the "decider." It's also easy to cancel any of the services without having to call and have some support rep try and keep you on as a customer.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Oh - just rampant speculation - got it

no. saying they will be profitable in 2024 is speculation (even if you pretend it is gospel)

If it was an independent company (and not part of a megcorp where 1B$ loss is chump change) that would have been enough for the SEC to intervene immediately, hiding terrible news that you know from share holders is kind of frowned upon.

Disney+ is an investment. No two ways about it.

tell us exactly how. Assuming tomorrow Disney decides to get rid of it for some rreason how do they get their money back?

You are also forgetting they now do business directly with the consumer. Every Disney+ account gives up an email address. I get countless emails from them offerring merchandise especially at the end of the year. I don't have to tell you how much of a cornerstone merchandising is as a profit center for Disney.

yeah they had all that before. I unsubscribed but got similar e-mails many years ago.

Like I said - we are not priviledged to know what their deal is with AWS. Without that information it would be nothing but guessing. And no - it doesn't always work that more end users means higher costs.

lol

My personal experience comes from Mainframe Computing - not Servers which is what AWS is using. That's a lot different then 3000 people using a single computer.

hugh?
A mainframe is archaic lingo for the main server, back in the day when the people used terminals (computers with minimal processing, basically used to access the mainframe that did all the work) and they were housed in data rooms, not data center. And a main fraims could have thousands of users ( at my University back in the day all users could access the mainframe to register for courses, see grades.....) and lastly tso that is not how it w0orks today you don't have 3000 user that access a single computer.

OBTW - Disney bought BAM-TECH outright before they started Disney+. That's the software platform that makes Disney+ streaming possible.

was it in Q2 2022? if yes what they paid would be an investment in Q2 2022 and could be used to explain their loss but if it was not 9and I am playing dumb here) then who cares. You need to show what investment happened in Q2 2022.

----- look you talked about merchandising, that can help Disney justify losing 1B on streaming, Personally I think Control is a better justification

[Show spoiler] Many years ago Apple launched iTunes it became more or less the only place to buy digital music, Apple a company that was almost bankrupt a bit before that used their monopoly on digital music to squeeze labels and artists, build a cult following and turn things around into being the biggest company in the world at one point in time. many believe the same can happen ith films, but I don't buy it, music is mostly background noise (music while I drive, jog, work to make things a bit more interesting) while films/Tv is an activity, BW and capacity for music was easy and minimal (even in the day), it is not the same for films, music is cheap to produce so easier to squeeze films are not they cost many millions.....) but because of the bold part studios want to make sure what happened to music does not happen to film and having your own streaming service helps make sure the bold part does not happen.

either way I don't think it is going anywhere and don't want anyone to read that into my post but you ae the one acting as if someone saying that it will be profitable in 2024 that we need to take a wirld prediction as fact and turn a blind eye to reality

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

To a certain extent you are correct. For the first time, consumers can pay for what they want and only what they want - not what the cables companies want them to have.

how is that even remotely true. I don't know about the US but here more or less from the beginning you could pay for basic cable and extra for the different specialty channels you want and just pay for the ones you want. Can I go to Disney (since it was the discussion at hand and say I only want access to Marvel films?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

To a certain extent you are correct. For the first time, consumers can pay for what they want and only what they want - not what the cables companies want them to have.

We still have the data caps to contend with those Cable ISP companies like Comcast that are the only local ISP as a bad example, that still try to eke out that $30 USD monthly fee extra for unlimited downloads, or hope for a extra $10 USD per 50 GB penalty (Max $100 USD). So as much as you say consumers can pay what they want, that is a lot more unique to people fortunate enough to have some choices as far as ISP. While I live in an area that they keep digging up streets for AT&T and Verison Fiber, I have yet to see these companies do really anything more then hawk smartphones. I take everyone read about the story of the couple without internet right in the heart of Seattle. Just a bad example how merciless consumers are treated by ISPs.

[JohnAV]

‘Minions: Rise of Gru’ Lights Up Record July 4th Box Office Fireworks With $125.2M Opening - Hollywood Reporter 6/3

The animated tentpole confirms that parents and younger kids are ready to return to the multiplex in droves despite the lingering pandemic.

What a fireworks show.

The long Fourth of July holiday weekend was a box office extravaganza for Hollywood as Minions: The Rise of Gru scored a huge four-day opening of $125.2 million domestically, according to Monday estimates. That includes $107 million for the three days, although grosses could shift in either direction when weekend actuals are tallied on Tuesday. Sunday numbers had shown Gru coming in around $129 million in a reminder that estimates fluctuate throughout the weekend.

Overseas, the movie crossed $86 million on Sunday for a global booty of $200 million-plus. By Monday, the tally will be north of $220 million

Forget about breaking pandemic-era records for a family title; the Illumination and Universal movie will boast one of the top starts ever at the domestic box office for an animated Hollywood tentpole, not adjusted for inflation. (Higher-priced Imax locations helped, turning in $10 million globally, including $8.6 million domestically.)

Friday’s haul alone was around $48 million from 4,400 theaters, including a hefty $10.8 million in previews.

The movie’s performance is significant in that it confirms that parents and younger kids are ready to return to the multiplex in droves. Throughout the pandemic, animated films have been considered a challenged genre. It didn’t help when Pixar and Disney’s Toy Story spinoff Lightyear opened to a tepid $51 million last month before falling off steeply in its sophomore outing (still, Lightyear achieved a milestone on Friday when jumping the $100 million mark domestically on Friday).

Until now, Paramount’s Sonic the Hedgehog 2, a live-action/CGI hybrid, held the record for the biggest opening of the pandemic era for a PG family release with $72 million.

In regards to Hollywood’s biggest July 4th openings, 2011’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon earned $115.9 million for the same four-day holiday weekend, followed by Spider-Man 2 ($115.8 million) and 2017’s Despicable Me 3 ($99 million). If estimates hold, Minions 2 will easily rank as No. 1. Some consider Spider-Man: Homecoming a July 4th entry, since the holiday fell mid-week in 2017, but it isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison (Homecoming debuted over the July 7-9 weekend to $117 million domestically).

Another milestone moment: overall revenue for the weekend will actually come in ahead of the same frame in 2019 as the box office recovery continues to gain momentum. Holdovers — and especially Top Gun: Maverick — are also a contributing factor to the boon.

The Rise of Gru is a sequel to 2015’s Minions and is the fifth entry in the Despicable Me franchise, which is the top-grossing animated series in history, not adjusted for inflation.

Heading into the weekend, tracking suggested that Minions 2 would open in the $70 million to $80 million range for the four-day holiday, but some believed it would do more. If going by the four-day number, the film will hold the record for a franchise-best opening. But if going by the three days, it will come in slightly behind Minions ($115.7 million).

Minions 2 will become only the 10th animated Hollywood film to debut to $100 million or more, a list led by Incredibles 2 ($182.7 million). And its three-day number of $108.5 million makes it No. 8 domestic launch of all time for an animated film after displacing Shrek 3.

Audiences bestowed Minions: The Rise of Gru with an A CinemaScore and strong exits.

The star-packed voice cast features Steve Carell, Pierre Coffin, Alan Arkin, Michelle Yeoh, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Taraji P. Henson, Lucy Lawless, Dolph Lundgren, RZA, Danny Trejo and Jean-Claude Van Damme. The origin story reveals how the supervillain Gru (Carell) and the Minions met when Gru was a young boy in the 1970s growing up in the suburbs.

Top Gun 2 continues to boom more than a month after first flying into theaters and looks to benefit from the patriotic holiday. The pic fell a scant 14 percent from last weekend to $25.5 million for the three days. For the four days, it should earn an estimated $32.5 million as it heads for the $600 million mark domestically after finishing Monday with an expected $571 million.

The Tom Cruise movie also continues to impress overseas, where it earned another $37 million for a foreign tally of $544.5 million and $1.11 billion globally.

Elvis fell to No. 3 in its second weekend with an estimated three-day gross of $19 million and $23.7 million for the four, putting the biopic’s domestic total at at $67.3 million through Sunday and roughly $72 million through Sunday. Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis Presley movie fell 39 percent from last weekend. Overseas, it pulled in another $15.4 million for a global total of $113.5 million through Sunday.

Jurassic World Dominion became only the fourth movie since COVID-19 to jump the $800 million mark worldwide with an estimated global total of $824.5 million. It finished No. 4 domestically with a three-day gross of $15.7 million and a projected $19.2 million for the four.

The Black Phone rounded out the top five, giving Universal three of the top spots. The Blumhouse-produced horror pic earned $12.3 million for the three days and an estimated $14.6 million for the four. Through Sunday, it has grossed $74.4 million globally.

Lightyear came in No. 6 in its third weekend with an estimated $6.6 million for the three days and $8.1 million for the four. Through Sunday, the Pixar movie has earned $105.4 million domestically and $82.2 million overseas for a global cume of $187.6 million.

Other than Minions 2, the only other new nationwide offering over July Fourth was Bleecker Street’s period drama Mr. Malcolm’s List, which opened in seventh place with an estimated $851,000 for the three days and $1 million for the four.

July 4, 8:45 a.m. Updated with revised estimates.