Hollywood still shows its love for cinema, despite the naysayers. Lost in the current theatrical release depression is that movie distributors continue to aggressively schedule cinema premieres months and even years ahead, when the Covid-19 is expected to be gone.
Such film release scheduling is known as “dating” in Hollywood parlance. And, yes, such dating can be undone. But also consider that Hollywood films will make more money (explained in later) than a straight-to-video-streaming distribution model.
Regarding just a few of major movies dated for upcoming cinema release next year and beyond:
+ Walt Disney Studios plans May 7, 2021 for “Black Widow” starring Scarlett Johansson; estimates are this comic-book-to-cinema adaptation cost $150-200 million to film.
+ Universal Pictures slated the next “Fast and Furious” actioner “F9” May 28; the car-crazed franchise’s films cost around $200 million each.
+ Sony Pictures has big-budget “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” set for June 25.
+ Paramount Pictures inked the $150 million-plus sequel “Top Gun: Maverick” for July 2.
Warner Bros. Pictures recently announced that its studio-film slate will premiere simultaneously on its corporate sibling streamer HBO Max. Other distributors are not expected to follow because of cinema backlash and, in fact, some investment analysts believe Warner will backtrack for simultaneous streaming and cinema (known as day-and-date) before the end of 2021.
Curiously, Warner Bros. is back to a cinema-first approach after 2021. A week ago, Warners dated three major films for cinema premieres (and not HBO Max) in 2023 — more than two years away! They are “Max Max” actioner prequel “Furiosa,” full-length animated feature “Coyote Vs. Acme,” and musical “The Color Purple.”
The Warner’s announcement for these three 2023 films is nuanced “from the motion picture side of Warner Bros (sans any exec quotes) to indicate they’re not trying to meltdown exhibition coming out of the pandemic,” says a Deadline.com article by Anthony D’Alessandro. “Ever since Warners announced its radical 2021 day-and-date theatrical and streaming release strategy earlier this month, Zoom calls at rival studios among execs have debated whether Warners will walk back their intended plan once they realize it’s not working halfway through the year, or literally transform themselves entirely into a Netflix-like studio with HBO Max taking the charge. Warners has said their intentions for the theatrical-HBO Max release strategy is for next year [2021] only.”
For Warners theatrical distribution, “Wonder Woman: 1984” performed better-than-expected in its Dec. 25, 2020, theatrical premiere (simultaneously landing on HBO Max). That is “giving most exhibition stocks a welcome boost as the misery of 2020 gives way to hope for a brighter 2021,” wrote Dade Hayes in Deadline.com.
There could be other twists and turns.
The MGM studio apparently floated a $600 million price tag to any streamer that want exclusive online-only premiere for its next James Bond film “No Time To Die.” And no takers so far. At that price, it would be a good return on the $250 million cost for filming “No Time To Die,” which is scheduled for April 2, 2021 cinema premiere, after delays. Owned by financial players for a decade, MGM is apparently interested in offers to be sold, putting what is a large Hollywood independent into flux.
Such streamer acquisition of studio films as online premieres would be complicated because the seller major studio or independent distributor wants to retain downstream distribution rights. For example, MGM would insist on getting “No Time To Die” for its syndication package of all 25 Bond films that date back to 1962. There’s a tug-of-war over downstream distribution rights.
On the previously-cited issue of movie economics, cinema release is very lucrative across Hollywood because movie distributors generally get half of the theater ticket revenue — say $5 from a $10 ticket. That’s for one showing at one moment in time to only one person. In contrast, TV and streaming presentations of the same film can be viewed by multiple people and over longer periods of time.
The legacy pattern for movie distribution — called “sequential distribution” — provides richer payoffs for hits that going all streaming. Each window, or stop along the way, creates another payday, whether premium pay like HBO or Showtime; basic cable networks like FX; or broadcast TV. And movies run into those windows multiple times (second basic cable window, third basic cable window, etc.) In contrast, streamers tend not to acquire old movies, preferring to invest in original productions — mostly TV series that they hold exclusively.
Marketing cachet is also an issue here.
Hollywood talent has an affinity to cinema and cinema awards. The press covers cinema releases excitedly. The public sees movie names plastered on theater marquees and, in some cases, lines of people in front of movie theaters around their towns. Cinema sports excitement and prestige that will carry a movie to greater riches in post-theatrical windows like streaming and TV.
A straight-to-streaming will lower big, glossy event films to just another face in crowded movie TV dial. Unemployed college students will be happy to stream in their parents’ basements. But how exciting is that?
Related content:
- Deadline.com: Warner Bros. Dates Three Pics For 2023 Theatrical Release (Not HBO Max): ‘Furiosa’, ‘Coyote Vs. Acme’ & ‘The Color Purple’
- BoxOfficeMojo.com: Domestic Release Schedule
- Deadline.com: ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Opening Boosts Movie Theater Stocks As 2021 Hopes Rise
- Los Angeles Business Journal: MGM Plays Waiting Game: Delay for James Bond Film Creates Concern
- ‘Hollywood Reporter’: Studios Hold Out Hope for Theaters’ Return to Normalcy
Leave a Reply