Will COVID-19 end theatrical movies

[Username taken]

I think it was Crazy Rich Asians that did poorly in China because it was pirated everywhere there.

Yep.

Piracy is massive in Asia and there are indeed high quality rips of BW everywhere.

[Holt]

I think it was Crazy Rich Asians that did poorly in China because it was pirated everywhere there.

Crazy Rich Asians reportedly did poorly in China for the same reason I'm sure Shang-Chi isn't gonna do well in China; the novelty of the film's representation isn't a big deal in China as it in the U.S. Putting aside questions of quality (the film itself was a lot of fun), the main reason it was a huge deal in America was because Asian actors very rarely get to lead films like this. That's obviously not the case in China, and a lot of people over there were calling it trite, cliche and stereotypical.

[Holt]

Box Office: ‘Black Widow’ Spins Record $80M U.S. Opening, Earns $60M On Disney+ Premier Access

Wow. 60 million on streaming is quite impressive. I wonder if that's gonna get Disney to consider sticking with this tactic for future releases.

[Gaastra]

All three combined black widow made $218m this weekend. Funny thing is they said black widow would have hit over $100m in american theatres alone if it wasn't on plus. (but $80m is still really well done!)

[numberthirty]

Box Office: ‘Black Widow’ Spins Record $80M U.S. Opening, Earns $60M On Disney+ Premier Access

Wow. 60 million on streaming is quite impressive. I wonder if that's gonna get Disney to consider sticking with this tactic for future releases.

For the sake of something we had been discussing earlier...

I took that sixty million, and divided it up by the thirty bucks to get the number of subscribers that actually went for buying the film in addition to their subscription.

Assuming the total number of Disney+ subscribers on the last page is accurate?

It's not exactly an impressive percentage of the total number of users.

Profit is still profit, but I thought that that little bit of math(and exactly how it played into some of what we had been discussing...) was worth the mention.

[Kirby101]

2 million subscribers, but we don't know how many watched with each purchase.
And divided, that $80 million probably translates to aroundimpressive movie tickets. So even if the average was 2 ppl per streaming, that is still 50% of the theater goers.
To me that is impresive.

[numberthirty]

2 million subscribers, but we don't know how many watched with each purchase.
And divided, that $80 million probably translates to aroundimpressive movie tickets. So even if the average was 2 ppl per streaming, that is still 50% of the theater goers.
To me that is impresive.

If you toss the terms we were discussing it in...

Seems like the idea was "This Creates New Customers For Streaming Services That Will Remain Customers After Purchasing The Film..."

If that is the case?

Accounting for some "New..." Disney+ subscriptions coming as a result of the film, you would still be at under five percent of the current number of subscribers actually paying the subscription to put them into a position to be able to purchase the film.

That does not exactly feel like the sort of an increase that poses a really serious threat to the "Theater..." section of the business.

[numberthirty]

Past that...

Anecdotal evidence -

The local Cinemark theater's parking lot?

About two-thirds full on a rainy Sunday afternoon at around 3:30pm when I drove past. Didn't really think to drive by to get a look at Friday/Saturday night.

[Kirby101]

If you toss the terms we were discussing it in...

Seems like the idea was "This Creates New Customers For Streaming Services That Will Remain Customers After Purchasing The Film..."

If that is the case?

Accounting for some "New..." Disney+ subscriptions coming as a result of the film, you would still be at under five percent of the current number of subscribers actually paying the subscription to put them into a position to be able to purchase the film.

That does not exactly feel like the sort of an increase that poses a really serious threat to the "Theater..." section of the business.

Not sure if BW brought new subscribers. I don't know if the $30 premium on top of subscribing is effective.

It would also be interesting to know how many Disney subscribers go to the movies to see BW.

I imagine most will wait for it to be free in a few months.

[thwhtGuardian]

It may not be a large percentage of Disney+ users...but that's still a nice chunk of change and given that they don't have to share any of that with theater chains I bet Disney's pretty happy with that dollar amount.

[numberthirty]

Not sure if BW brought new subscribers. I don't know if the $30 premium on top of subscribing is effective.

It would also be interesting to know how many Disney subscribers go to the movies to see BW.

I imagine most will wait for it to be free in a few months.

Just pointing out that the idea that it would was pretty central(along with that those new subscribers would continue to be subscribers...) to the way that streaming was supposed to speed up the "Theater..." end of the business being cut into to any sizable degree.

Let's say(even though we can be certain that it is not actually the case...) that every single one of those instances was a new subscriber.

That only amounts to a little over five percent of the entirety of Disney+ users.

Even spotting "New..." subscriptions that entire five percent, how many of those subscribers stay subscribers over the long run?

[numberthirty]

It may not be a large percentage of Disney+ users...but that's still a nice chunk of change and given that they don't have to share any of that with theater chains I bet Disney's pretty happy with that dollar amount.

Sure, from a "Profit..." standpoint it is nothing to sneeze at.

That said, the entire argument we heard about how the "Streaming..." part of the business would cut into the "Theatrical..." part of the business was largely based on that the long term money being made from subscriptions would be how they did it.

[thwhtGuardian]

Sure, from a "Profit..." standpoint it is nothing to sneeze at.

That said, the entire argument we heard about how the "Streaming..." part of the business would cut into the "Theatrical..." part of the business was largely based on that the long term money being made from subscriptions would be how they did it.

I never bought into that to begin with, to some people going to the movies is an event they enjoy and can't be replaced by home viewing. It's like live sports, they're filmed in high definition now and camera technology has evolved to the point that they can really zoom in on the action like you're actually on the field with the players...and yet (covid protocols aside) in person sports attendance does just fine.

Sure, some people are going to view at home because to them its more cost effective and just as fun but for just as many they prefer going out.

[inisideguy]

I mean 60 million streaming? Holy fork.

[Holt]

For the sake of something we had been discussing earlier...

I took that sixty million, and divided it up by the thirty bucks to get the number of subscribers that actually went for buying the film in addition to their subscription.

Assuming the total number of Disney+ subscribers on the last page is accurate?

It's not exactly an impressive percentage of the total number of users.

Profit is still profit, but I thought that that little bit of math(and exactly how it played into some of what we had been discussing...) was worth the mention.

Seems pretty impressive to me, especially for a movie that was already available in theaters the same weekend.