They at least need to try a 90 day window again.

A lot of drops ended up being nicer with actuals, no BW yet lol. Guessing it did fall below 80m.

^^^^
Disney is always late with actuals. I think its staying above 80m.

Oooh ok, well that'd be nice if it did

https://deadline.com/2021/07/black-wido ... 234790768/
Now as for this... lol yeah I don't think they should be basing figures like this. How many of these "households" are sharing accounts...

It’s still better than WB saying 1 billion minutes of WW84 we’re watched. The premiere price takes that into account somewhat, I think they’re expecting 4-5 people watching it which would $30 matinee price

Final Numbers: $80,366,312 for BW

Needs a 2.5 multiplier to get to 200m. Should do it tbh but let's see how it holds weekend 3.

100% all of this.

Theatrical window is incredibly important to sustained cultural buzz/relevance.

While my instinct would say all blockbusters are helped by theatre experience, some visually driven stuff like GOT and The Mandalorian did just fine on the small screen and showed you can build buzz there, so it's possible "blockbusters" could play well. I would say a film like the original Pirates would be less likely to build WOM without theatres but it's rare enough to get those anyways.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mess with the MCU formula if I was them which is people going to see it in the theatre to the point where it's now a social tradition. The movies have always been flawed and playing it beyond safe, and I wouldn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth in terms of people realizing it or breaking their habit.

Couple things to respond to:

1st: My comments apply to beyond mega-blockbusters.

A good example of what I am trying to say is two very similar films released in 2018: A Quiet Place vs. Birdbox. The latter did gigantic streaming numbers that many would say would indicate a way bigger audience than AQP. Yet I don't think a single executive would rather of had the success of Birdbox over AQP.

AQP made 350m WW and followed it up with a sequel that is going to do near 300m WW in COVID times (I firmly believe it would have done near 450m+ WW in normal times). And both still made tons of money after the theatrical window! The franchise is also culturally relevant enough now that we're going to see at least two more sequels/spinoffs if not more.

Birdbox did gigantic streaming numbers and was a meme for a bit but it has significantly less revenue-generation than AQP. It did its big numbers in its first few weeks and then basically hasn't given Netflix much money since.

Another example is a franchise which Netflix just recently bought: Knives Out. That film may have done well in streaming but the theatrical window it had made it such a high-priced IP that Netflix spent almost A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS on the two sequels.. If that was a direct-to-streaming film, there is not a bidding war for its sequels goes that high.

2nd point: Even if we compare look at the cream of the crop...the mega-blockbusters of films are way more profitable than streaming and way more frequent.

GOT, Stranger Things, Mandolorian, etc. all are massive hits that have cultural relevance. They generate a ton of revenue outside of streaming. But....so do theatrical mega-blockbusters! They generate in all the same revenue streams as those contents PLUS make hundreds of million dollars worldwide in theaters. So even when you look at the top, you still rather have the theatrical revenue generation.

Additionally, we have way more films making hundreds of millions of dollars in theaters and other streams than we do have for streaming-exclusive. The odds of getting a GOT/Stranger Things/Mando that can generate that type of revenue is way harder and infrequent than movies (even if you take away Disney and comic-books, you still have films like Jumanji, Jurassic World, Fast & Furious, Mission Impossible, It, etc. that made 700m+ WW so its not just Disney and comic-book films).

Now, the obvious counter to both of my points is that the streaming game is different and not about direct revenue. Which works if you assume that there needs to be a inherent trade-off...when there is no reason there needs to be now that studios have their own platforms. They can make money in both! This is a classic game-theory situation in which the optimal option is not "either/or" but an emphasis on both.

The studios still are evolving and making choices due to COVID so nothing is set in stone. But if a Disney executive is sitting thinking "80m OW + 60m VOD" is good for the first MCU film released in two years...they are wildly misplaying the game. My bet is that they know that this weekends numbers are not great so they released the 60m number as a way to spin their story for the weekend.

Also the examples people are giving for stuff on streaming/TV that maintained cultural relevance are long-form series (which is obviously what suited to the format) rather than stand-alone films. When you have a whole season-dump for people to binge or (even better) episodes dropping weekly it's a different animal than a 2 hr film. Obviously nobody would make the argument that no TV series has ever really captured the cultural zeitgeist.

I'm not sure if we can say Bird Box is as popular as A Quiet Place. I think it would have done well in theatres but maybe that means 40/100 type run. AQP is also considered a better film hence holding up better culturally and having a popular sequel. I also expect Bird Box 2 to be a smash and for them to make as many sequels as Sandy is willing to and probably some after that even if she isn't. Bird Box may end up the F13 to A Quiet Place's Halloween.

If theatres decline because people want the choice to watch movies at home as soon as they come out, then the consumer has spoken and so be it. This generation is different psychologically and socially than previous ones and theaters are one of my things that will have to reckon with that. The silver lining is that maybe mid level R rated comedies/romcoms/dramas can actually still exist in streaming era.

There is a direct path to large scaler profitability with the theatrical release. None - read again, none - of the streaming services are profitable. Disney highly relying on simply reaching more people and this translating into more consumer product sales, etc.

How is Disney's streaming service not profitable? They hardly have any new content on it and they already have 100m customers. Yes it would hit some of the costs for VOD but I feel that wasn't as big for their current set of titles within the service anyways and its easily reimbursed by the monthly subscription money. The money for creation of app would have easily been covered by just new subscriptions and maintainence by steady monthly subscriptions. Its not like they have the state-of-the-art app or great technology behind it like Netflix does.

"Since its inception, Disney+ has invested over $500 million in its originals, and Disney is about to pump in $8-9 billion for more. Although its profits fell by a jaw-dropping 45 percent in its first year, Disney+ as a whole is still expected to turn over a profit in four to five years."

With $100m subscriptions how much do you think they are making monthly? We are talking about returns on shows that have yet to been out which will definitely take longer time because some of them are still in production or release train.

That’s my exact point. Birdbox did huge streaming numbers and it’s not as popular as AQP. Thinking that streaming can replicate success of theatrical is foolish.

Great hold for A Quiet Place in the face of Black Widow.

Theatrical is super important but feel much of the shift comes down to appealing to shareholders. Streaming isn't about replacing theatrical but increasing stickiness in an ecosystem. We can't understate the network effects as a critical driver. Movies are no longer about maximizing box office returns and film revenue alone. There's reduced costs in distribution, higher levels of control, and ability to give larger budgets and more creative freedom to talent.

Amazon Prime -> Add content to increase the moat and have people stay on their platform for online orders. The utility isn't to maximize film returns but to improve the stickiness of the platform. Think we'll probably only see theatrical runs from Amazon films for prestige Oscar films. Interest in Prime service rose with the release of “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.

Disney + -> In 2016, 40% of Disney's revenue was through Media networks (ESPN, Disney Channel, Hulu, ABC). In 2020, it was down to 28.39% but still 3X higher than 9.64% of studio entertainment. Cable cord cutters were hitting Disney's bottom line and Disney needed to do something dramatic. Disney is building its moat with assets like Fox. There's a larger share of revenue they keep as well as the reduction in costs they have for theatrical marketing campaigns. There's also the richness of user data that Disney is gaining which is likely allowing them to customize their experience to individual users across parks, merchandise, etc. in ways they wouldn't be able to as cost efficiently from a theatrical release.

Netflix -> Spielberg just signed a deal with Netflix. Scorsese's been involved. There's more creative freedom some of the streamers can give films than a traditional theatrical release can at a higher budget. Netflix is working on podcasts and likely other media within the moat. The Knives Out deal wasn't purely about box office revenue equivalent. It was about pulling Rian into their ecosystem, two sequels, likely a tv show eventually and getting the content creators comfortable working with them. Knives Out did well internationally and the strategic benefit of leveraging film sequels to expand the platform to new markets is compelling.

Apple+ -> It's the moat effect again to keep people within the ecosystem to use other products similar to Amazon. The Scorsese, DiCaprio and De Niro film coming out soon brings Apple a prestige that will encourage other A-list talent to build content for them. Abrams deal, Oprah, etc. They can also make a lot of $, likely have more creative freedom to make films and content in ways they wouldn't be able to in a theatrical release through a major studio.

All of the talent you are stating exist because of the theatrical model.

Reduced costs or not, none of them make money and they're going tor reach subs plateaus at some point.

Watching a big movie on a personal device is about as exciting as seeing the former local high school star when his double a baseball team comes to town. It's just a much smaller level of excitement than when Shohei Otani rolls up.

The essential problem I’m getting at is that when you reduce studio films as just “content”, the competition becomes way bigger because there’s a FUCK TON of content and studios can only control so much of it.

The theatrical model allows movies to be seen as movies first and that then eventually may merge into the “content” bucket. But by being a movie first, it gives a higher chance of becoming “premium content” that can beat out the competition. But if you just start in the content bucket from the start, you’re going to have a much harder time competing.

No one is denying the value and revenue generation of streaming platforms. The problem is denying the value and revenue generation of the theatrical model. If studios keep doing the latter, most except maybe Disney and WB will be completely fucked in ten years.

To return to normal, several things must happen.

1. Studios must return to a 90 day window and cease day and date streaming releases
2. Overwhelming majority of People must view the coronavirus as a non issue akin to the flu
3. Quality of films must go up in comparison to streaming releases

All great points. Business fundamentals for theaters were not exactly stellar pre-pandemic though. High debt levels, risk of bankruptcies, a need for consolidation to survive. That's despite box office records being broken in 2019 for studios.

I love seeing movies in theaters but the world is different and in many ways there will be no going back to "normal." Times have changed and so have consumption patterns and demographic changes.

Much of the older talent yes is from the theatrical model, agreed with that. However, tech is driving new talent from influencers on social media who are getting content deals. Many of the biggest 90s and 00's stars also got their start in TV where they built fanbases pre-film careers which is worth mentioning.

The points about competition increasing are completely valid. The theatrical model absolutely has compelling revenue generation but the costs are making it less and less profitable for players not named Disney. Most studios other than Disney and WB were already going to be in trouble even if streamers never showed up and the writing was on the wall for consolidation to survive.

Advertisers (and $) go where the eyeballs are. Taking a look at the top 50 most followed Instagram accounts, Kevin Hart, Vin Diesel, Emma Watson, and Shraddha Kapoor (Bollywood film star) appear to be influencers that got their start in the theatrical film industry. Hart had a breakout role in a Judd Apatow tv show, Emma Watson joined a film that built a massive audience in books, Shraddha came from a family of film stars. So Vin Diesel may be one of the only people that gained most of his initial influence from theatrical productions. Even then, after 20 years of Fast films he'll probably retire soon and many of his audiences are skewing older demographic wise.