Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Coach

The profitability of their roles has diminished significantly in recent years. Until streaming, Silverstone probably could have lived very well just off the residuals of Clueless itself, much less any other movie she was in. But, even though streamers still pay large sums to have popular titles, the money the owners owe to residuals for performers/writers are minuscule by comparison.

She probably earned more from one year of residuals of Clueless from 1 single network purchasing it than she has received in total from streamers since Clueless hit that market.

And then there is Seinfeld...what were the last numbers on his residuals?

Oh! And the Estate of Sir Alec Guinness...I think they're still making a mint off his Star Wars back-end?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Locke

And then there is Seinfeld...what were the last numbers on his residuals?

Oh! And the Estate of Sir Alec Guinness...I think they're still making a mint off his Star Wars back-end?

Seinfeld himself, yeah making a killing. Just like the producers of Clueless will get the lions share of a sale to Netflix (or wherever). But according to the CBAs between the Producers and the WGA/SAG etc... they don't owe nearly the same residuals on "online content", because those rules were written when "online content" was like...Ebaums world. This is why every major name is also an "Executive Producer" on their own content, because that's where money is.

This is what all the recent strikes were about. Honestly I'm not sure they made up close to the ground they had before. On the flip side, networks are bleeding money from all these legacy contracts when compared to their streaming platforms.

The whole industry is still in upheaval from the streaming boom and probably will be for a while.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by blankall

Just looked up Alicia Silverstone's recent work, and it is wild.

Christmas movies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Merry_Little_Ex-Mas

Softcore porn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Thing_(film)

Voicework for kids movies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracie..._to_the_Rescue

Dutch language films:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krazy_House_(film)

Pakistani comedies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustache_(film)

Giant shark attack movies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Requin

It seems like actors who wouldn't have done direct to video type stuff have no reservations about doing direct to streaming work.

She was in Bugonia. i watched it and had no idea she was in it until I read something afterwards.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Coach

The profitability of their roles has diminished significantly in recent years. Until streaming, Silverstone probably could have lived very well just off the residuals of Clueless itself, much less any other movie she was in. But, even though streamers still pay large sums to have popular titles, the money the owners owe to residuals for performers/writers are minuscule by comparison.

She probably earned more from one year of residuals of Clueless from 1 single network purchasing it than she has received in total from streamers since Clueless hit that market.

She's also an actress in her fifties, options for starring roles are going to be very limited.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Coach

Seinfeld himself, yeah making a killing. Just like the producers of Clueless will get the lions share of a sale to Netflix (or wherever). But according to the CBAs between the Producers and the WGA/SAG etc... they don't owe nearly the same residuals on "online content", because those rules were written when "online content" was like...Ebaums world. This is why every major name is also an "Executive Producer" on their own content, because that's where money is.

This is what all the recent strikes were about. Honestly I'm not sure they made up close to the ground they had before. On the flip side, networks are bleeding money from all these legacy contracts when compared to their streaming platforms.

The whole industry is still in upheaval from the streaming boom and probably will be for a while.

Pretty sure the only profitable streaming service was still Netflix in 2024. (Which IMO makes sense, I think it's pretty far ahead of the competition in what it offers.)

[bluejays]

Watched One Battle After Another last night. Really good. Highly recommend. One of the best flicks of the year. And subtly funny.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Knives Out 3 was superb.

Shame its theater release is limited. Deserves better!

Go see it on the big screen while you can.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Itse

Pretty sure the only profitable streaming service was still Netflix in 2024. (Which IMO makes sense, I think it's pretty far ahead of the competition in what it offers.)

Well, I wouldn't trust the accounting of ANY of these entities, but Netflix is also the only streamer where thats the only thing they do. The other top ones (Apple, Prime, Disney) are all not only tied to their revenue from the streaming service, and they can likely use it as a dumping ground for debt to look "unprofitable". 2 of those services are basically given to you by being a customer of their other products. The rest of the streamers are just the legacy networks trying to do catchup and IMO it will crash and burn.

The fallout of all this is still in motion and unpredictable, especially as live sports start to enter the mix. And I totally disagree about Netflix. It's way too expensive and its original content is trash.

[Nadal Fan]

I had a super cool movie watching experience on Thursday. Calgary Cinematheque showed the original Phantom of the Opera from 1925 and it was accompanied by live organ music. I haven't seen a ton of silent films but this one was really good and having a live score added to the movie.

[fotze2]

I watched Rental Family. Might be a bit pandering to the cry a lot crowd. But like an homage to Japan. Loved it. Good take your wife to it movie.

Brendan Fraser is a gem. Can’t help but love that guy.

The movie name is terrible. Implies it’s a national lampoon movie. And it is not at all.

[Cheese]

Watched "The Running Man" yesterday and really enjoyed it. Much better than Arnold's iteration and closer to the book, outside of the ending. 7/10

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Coach

Well, I wouldn't trust the accounting of ANY of these entities, but Netflix is also the only streamer where thats the only thing they do. The other top ones (Apple, Prime, Disney) are all not only tied to their revenue from the streaming service, and they can likely use it as a dumping ground for debt to look "unprofitable". 2 of those services are basically given to you by being a customer of their other products. The rest of the streamers are just the legacy networks trying to do catchup and IMO it will crash and burn.

The fallout of all this is still in motion and unpredictable, especially as live sports start to enter the mix. And I totally disagree about Netflix. It's way too expensive and its original content is trash.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolin...neyland-paris/

The scale of the challenge Disney faces in trying to make its money back from Disney+ has been highlighted in new research which reveals that in just the past five years its streaming division has lost almost three times more money than Disneyland Paris has done in more than three decades despite the French resort being widely seen as one of the studio’s biggest financial flops.

In fact, despite recently posting a string of operating profits, Disney’s Direct To Consumer (DTC) streaming division is still one of the most loss-making ventures in the studio's 102-year history.

As for what they offer, the main difference between Netflix and the rest is that Netflix is a global service (tons of non-American offerings) for a global audience (70% non-North American audience). They've got a lot of stuff in big "niches" like anime and Asian shows and movies, and they just have way more genuine niche stuff. (For example I watched a Polish movie about middle-aged guys restarting their death metal band ) They aren't trying to get everyone to watch one premium show.

The rest are mostly just offering American mainstream entertainment. That, IMO, is kind of a bad business model that doesn't suit the strentghs of streaming. In any case everyone else is essentially just competing with each other, except Disney has the children's animation corner covered pretty well.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Itse

For example I watched a Polish movie about middle-aged guys restarting their death metal band

What movie is this?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Itse

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolin...neyland-paris/

Yeah, I'm just not sure I buy that. Disney+ doesn't really make original content the way something like Netflix does. Disney itself and its various subsidiaries makes content that ends up on Disney+, a service people pay for independently of its other many, many revenue streams. So how can Disney+ itself be a financial burden? All it is is a holding place for all the content it owns.

So from an accounting level, you can definitely make a $200M movie, put it on Disney+ and call it a loss because you're not making public whether or not that movie pulled extra revenue solely by it's own. They can do that with basically everything they own and call it losses for tax purposes. Same with Apple. They don't make money from Apple+, they make it from their products. Amazon doesn't make money from it's original content, it makes money from it's online shopping memberships.

Netflix can (and certainly does) do this too, but because Netflix ONLY makes/purchases content to distribute on it's platform and doesn't have parks and cruises and merch etc... pumping it up, it can't claim to be not profitable.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AC

What movie is this?

Yes. This film premise intrigues me...

[Shazam]

Matrix 5 in development. Does that prove that we're in a matrix?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Matrix 5 in development. Does that prove that we're in a matrix?

You gotta be fataing s###ing me with this!!

The Matrix was a great movie. The Matrix 2 and 3 were hot ass. The Matrix 4 was literally them laughing at the stupid rubes who paid to see it.

Whats The Matrix 5 going to be? 2+ hours of a camcorder recording of a Wachowski's ass hole??

"Hurr durr....dey paid to see it tho!!"

[Wormius]

“28 Years Later”. WTF was that last scene??

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Locke

You gotta be fataing s###ing me with this!!

The Matrix was a great movie. The Matrix 2 and 3 were hot ass. The Matrix 4 was literally them laughing at the stupid rubes who paid to see it.

Whats The Matrix 5 going to be? 2+ hours of a camcorder recording of a Wachowski's ass hole??

"Hurr durr....dey paid to see it tho!!"

I'm likely in the minority of people that found the trilogy satisfying. They could have stopped at the single film, but realizing they had a franchise on their hands going for the cash grab with 2 and 3 were entertaining, IMO. Plus we got the Animatrix (fantastic) and that first video game.

I got what they were going with in 4 so I actually liked it for what it was, but it was entirely unnecessary. The whole story should and could have been told in 2 films.

I'll watch 5 because I'm an irrational loyalist to the original concept.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Matrix 5 in development. Does that prove that we're in a matrix?

Ugh, seriously? I have no interest in watching that whatsoever. The 4th movie was atrocious.