Jump to content

Studios to stream some titles during cinema run (and others going to streaming)


JohnC
 Share

Recommended Posts

MGM is looking to sell it's entire film and TV studios to a streaming company

 

Quote

The Wall Street Journal reports that MGM is actively looking to sell off its studio, with the hope being that they can attract companies keen on expanding their reach in the world of streaming. 

 

The company, which has already turned to investment banks Morgan Stanley and LionTree LLC to begin the formal sale process, has a market value of $5.5 billion. They hope to attract a buyer willing to pay that much money for franchises like James Bond, Candyman, Rocky, RoboCop, The Handmaid's Tale, Stargate, and countless others. 

 

As the site explains in its report, "MGM is hopeful the current process will generate interest beyond Hollywood’s traditional players, from international media companies, private-equity investors and blank-check companies, one of the people familiar with the matter said."

 

A streamer could fill its service with thousands of hours of content by acquiring MGM, while the potential that some of the properties listed above have is unlimited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

CBS All Access becoming Paramount+ prompted this thread about why Disney might be the only studio that will be able to sustain a whole streaming service based on its studio brand:

 

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1364737107579838466.html

 

Quote

Much like Nintendo, Disney has always, always been a company dedicated to creating a unified identity around their studio name. If Disney makes a film, its “Disneyness” becomes part of its identity, in a way audiences recognise (for better or worse). 

 

This is why Disney has become the uncontested champion of IP-driven media: because they have convinced audiences to meaningfully connect the franchises it owns. The Disney brand has star power, and bringing Marvel, Star Wars etc under the label strengthens its power. 

 

*Audiences do not perceive any other studios this way.* They just don’t. Nobody cares that Mission: Impossible is a Paramount franchise, or that Jurassic Park is from Universal.

If DISNEY made a Godzilla film? A big deal! Warner Bros makes Godzilla? The studio is a non-factor. 

 

Of course, many of these series are super-popular! But the point is, none of these other studios has spent a century developing their brand name to function as an all-encompassing master identity, so their franchises don’t gain any extra power from being under the same label. 

 

Unfortunately, Disney has gotten so ruthlessly good at absorbing the world’s biggest franchises into its corporate branding that other studios now want to compete on the same terms, and it simply doesn’t make sense for them. It’s not their business model! But they’re gonna try! 

 

Look at these Paramount+ announcements. Just a spray-and-pray fire hose of disparate brands they own, that mean nothing when combined together. Star Trek! Mission: Impossible! A Quiet Place! Halo! Avatar! Uh, Rugrats? SpongeBob! Frasier...? Clifford the Big Red Dog! 

 

It’s hardly “Disney + Pixar + Marvel + Star Wars + The Simpsons”, is it? That’s because Disney has defined the terms of this IP war, according to their own strengths and others’ weaknesses. The fact that Paramount and WB are trying to engage on those terms is bad for everyone. 

 

Well, not for Disney. But bad for these other studios, who will not be able to do this sustainably, and bad for audiences, as original ideas get shunted out by rival studios searching desperately for safe, proven brands to reboot into Disney-style mega-franchises. 

 

This is one area where the games industry compares favourably to movies: Sony and Microsoft successfully plough their own furrows, driven by risk-taking new franchises, and gave up on trying to copy the Nintendo/Disney “happy unified world of mega-franchises” model years ago. 

 

I really hope the other movie studios wise up soon, because this current trend is a creative disaster. Mainstream cinema has become hopelessly dominated by endlessly rebooted franchises due to mindless Disney-chasing, and the currently diverse TV/streaming market is now at risk. 

 

Best case scenario, this trend burns out, and WB/Paramount/Universal go back to diverse creative-led media, and leave the brand-driven stuff to Disney.

Worst case, everything is Disney in 10 years, either through copycats, or because it all crashes and Disney buys the wreckage. 

 

And I say this as a Disney fan! Who hosts a Disney podcast! The (likely failed) Disneyfication of the entire entertainment industry is not a desirable outcome to me, and that’s all I see any of this new wave of streaming platforms offering.

Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In the US, Sony's movies will be streamed by Netflix after they finish their cinema runs:

 

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/netflix-sony-pictures-pay-1-starz-output-1234946413/

 

Quote

Netflix has emerged the winner of a nearly two-year auction for the exclusive U.S. rights to stream Sony Pictures’ theatrical releases in the first pay TV window starting with the studio’s 2022 slate.

 

Netflix has also set a first-look agreement with Sony for all of the studio’s original movies produced for the direct-to-streaming market. That deal also requires Netflix to commit to a certain number of titles from the studio, but it doesn’t stop Sony from selling direct-to-streaming titles to Netflix’s rivals. And Netflix will license an unspecified number of older titles from Sony’s movie vault.

 

Sony Pictures’ primary pay TV partner has been Starz, now owned by Lionsgate, since 2006. The new theatrical output deal with Netflix, which only covers the U.S., is believed to run about five years and is undoubtedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the studio over the term. Industry sources said Sony executives are working on another significant theatrical movie licensing pact outside the Netflix agreement.

 

Quote

In a sign of the current sensitivities around theatrical windowing and Hollywood studios’ commitment to the exhibition window, Sony’s announcement made a point of noting that the direct-to-streaming movies produced for Netflix and other streamers will be “additive” to Sony’s full theatrical slate, “which will continue at its current volume,” Sony said.

 

The new arrangement helps answer a lingering question about where SPE fits in the transformed marketplace. The studio has vowed to focus on supplying content to others rather than wading into the streaming platform wars. The crowded SVOD market that Netflix seeded now includes Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, HBO Max, Hulu, Paramount Plus, Apple TV Plus and many other niche players.

 

I suppose this means Sony has no plans to jump on the bandwagon and launch their own streaming service (at least not within the five-year duration of this deal). Good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

So do we reckon the entirety of Sony Pictures output over 2 years was worth more or less than Knives Out 2 and 3?


Well given that the Knives Out sequels will be exclusive to Netflix, but the Sony films will

already have debuted at the cinema a year before, I think the Sony deal may have cost more, but possibly be worth less than the Knives Out deal in terms of generating new subscribers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
38 minutes ago, Welrain said:

You’d think they would have sorted that out before release.

 

News stories are claiming that her representatives were attempting to contact Disney over it and renegotiate but were being blanked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeciderVT said:

That's one MCU character that'll stay dead in the multiverse then. :lol:

 

They'll probably make sure. There's a story here that I imagine begins them ignoring her character for a standalone film for so long.

 

As far as it seems, they should have renegotiated the contract with the changed release but didn't because a) disney don't give a fuck and b) she's leaving the franchise in any case. They don't seem to like her that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve just read this and my first reaction a bit - boo boo to the already multimillionaire. However, at the end of the day if she has been shafted unfairly out of income it shouldn’t matter if it is a fiver or 50mill it is still a shitty way to treat someone who has been with them for such a long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, iknowgungfu said:

I’ve just read this and my first reaction a bit - boo boo to the already multimillionaire. However, at the end of the day if she has been shafted unfairly out of income it shouldn’t matter if it is a fiver or 50mill it is still a shitty way to treat someone who has been with them for such a long time. 

That's exactly it. It's shitty, and irrelevant how much cash she has already, even if it's probably 500x what most of us here have. We don't actually know her financial situation either. 

 

I can't imagine there is much she can do though, unless there's a specific "must not go to streaming for x months after release" clause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IcEBuRN said:

I can't imagine there is much she can do though, unless there's a specific "must not go to streaming for x months after release" clause. 

 

Naturally IANAL but there has to be an argument to be made because the contract presumably does reference cinema exclusivity. I think the question would really be over how much impact it had and whether or not the circumstances meant that the studio's actions were justified. I really doubt they can unilaterally do something like this unless the contract contained relevant exclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Festoon said:

Now wait to see what happens wge  Jungle Cruise (which is apparently shite) flops.

 

64% fresh after 167 critic reviews is hardly what I'd call shite. I had to sit through Thunder Force this year because my partner wanted to watch it, so I know what actual shite looks like. I'm looking forward to it for some cheesy fun.

 

All that said, this film isn't going to perform well because it isn't Marvel or Star Wars where internet nerds need to know what happens straight away. Many a family will be just fine waiting for November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iknowgungfu said:

I’ve just read this and my first reaction a bit - boo boo to the already multimillionaire. However, at the end of the day if she has been shafted unfairly out of income it shouldn’t matter if it is a fiver or 50mill it is still a shitty way to treat someone who has been with them for such a long time. 

The bigger thing is if this is how they treat a big star with global fame, how are they treating lesser stars and those behind the camera? It's not a good look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue here really is the element of risk. She took a risk by taking points on royalties, which is fair enough, but the risk may be deemed to be unfair if the film was not released according to the terms of the contract, meaning that the risk may be been unfairly stacked against her - and since her agents tried to renegotiate the terms, it seems lilke Disney were aware of this. Odd move when there are so many stars in their films who could fuck them over in sequels, etc. if it's bot resolved amicably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SweatyTravolta said:

 

64% fresh after 167 critic reviews is hardly what I'd call shite. I had to sit through Thunder Force this year because my partner wanted to watch it, so I know what actual shite looks like. I'm looking forward to it for some cheesy fun.

 

All that said, this film isn't going to perform well because it isn't Marvel or Star Wars where internet nerds need to know what happens straight away. Many a family will be just fine waiting for November.

 

Maybe, I got the feeling from the publicity that it was a little desperate to please. Maybe it'll be fine. The reviews I read were like reviews of Blunt and Johnson rather than a film review - "We like them so the film's ok"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished jungle cruise and it was an enjoyable family action / comedy  movie with a few supernatural horror bits. The kids loved  it.  In ways it reminded me of the mummy / pirates of the Caribbean 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.