Ghostbusters: Afterlife
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
Studios are going to resist releasing stuff on streaming as much as possible. It screws up multiple deals for them and can screw over the actors, depending on how their contracts are worded. That or they have to amend agreements to fix things and that takes time and money, too.
See also: The backlash Warner got for releasing all those delayed movies on HBO Max. Not everyone has streaming. Not everyone has the right streaming to get the thing they want to see. It's an exclusionary practice, unless one releases on all streaming platforms simultaneously, as well as (maybe lower-quality) over broadcast media, for those who don't have any streaming services -- or even internet at all.
sztriki
Sr Member
I think the backlash was that they were/are gonna release the movies on streaming the same time they were going to send them to theatres which I just cannot wrap my head around. To me it's either or: bite the bullet and put it out early on stream while the pandemic is still on or if you're gonna wait until theatres are back in business go for the theatrical release. Doing them both at the same time would only result a theatrical flop, because half of the people who would have gone to see the movie in theatres decided to stay at home.
Cephus
Master Member
Seriously, too bad. It's like complaining that the movie you want to watch isn't in your local theater and it's too much of a hassle to drive a couple of miles. It is available to those who want to see it. If that's not you, then you don't get to. Nobody has to cater to you. Too bad, so sad.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
It’s not really like that at all, though…not when people are paying close to if not more than $100 a month just to have access to all the streaming services, not to mention what happens when a studio controls both production and distribution of their content—depending on the hold they have on their respective audiences, they can jack their prices up to absurd amounts. The streaming service bubble will pop and we the consumer will pay for it.
Cephus
Master Member
That's their choice. Nobody owes anyone anything, especially complaining that everyone should have access to things, just because they want them. If Warner wants to put all of their movies on HBO Max, that's their choice. If you want to see those movies streaming, I guess you know what you have to do. I expect the whole thing to come crashing down in a ball of flames sooner rather than later, but until then, people need to make intelligent decisions.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
The intelligent decision is to not support predatory, harmful, monopolistic business practices that will result in an entertainment wasteland.
Back to the film at hand, I think I’d have to see the slimer ghoul thing in action to really say either way how I feel about. But I don’t think it could be that bad…nothing could be worse than the Slimer stuff in either GB2 or the 2016 film…
Back to the film at hand, I think I’d have to see the slimer ghoul thing in action to really say either way how I feel about. But I don’t think it could be that bad…nothing could be worse than the Slimer stuff in either GB2 or the 2016 film…
Solo4114
Master Member
It's more than just that. The stars? The big ones? They get deals where they get points on the package. If the calculation of those points depends on "box office revenue" then what happens when you don't have a box office? How do you calculate that revenue? You have to then revise the agreement or risk getting sued.
The backlash was pretty heavily from the actors and other talent involved who felt they were getting screwed, probably because they were. But to your point about either/or, I kinda get what you're saying but there are a lot of people who don't have access to streaming or unlimited data plans and the like. For them, the theater is it. It may be a splurge night, but they still go. That's why you see so many "tentpole" movies these days: that's what lures people to the theater when they don't go very often.
So, why not do both? Why pass up a potential revenue stream? The real question will be "How much does it cost us to release it theatrically?" Plus there are other contractual issues with theater chains and such, and they have to be careful they don't breach those.
It's not even about the consumers here. For the studios, they want to maximize the number of people who see the film, and maximize the money they take in for doing so. Everything's a calculation about that. Not "What's most fair to viewers?" They don't give a s**t about "Oh, but is it fair to the viewers?" Who cares? Does it make them money or not?
Cephus
Master Member
I agree, but what I responded to wasn't recognizing the realities of modern day Hollywood, it was trying to play the "it's not fair!" card.
That card doesn't actually exist in the real world.
Solo4114
Master Member
I mean, it exists, it just doesn't hold any real value to the studios.
"I play the fairness card!"
"Sir, this is
To be fair, none of these streaming premieres are keeping anyone from seeing the films, just because they don't have the service. They're all available about a month later On Demand.
Riceball
Master Member
That or Redbox. Yeah, you actually have to go out to Redbox kiosk and actually rent a physical disc, but given how ubiquitous Redbox is (at least in the greater LA metro area), I don't see it as a big deal. If a special trip out to the nearest Redbox is an issue, then just wait until the next time go grocery shopping and pick it up then.
Hey you leave Arby's out of it! *sulks away* They have the BEST curly fries...
I don't really care when these things come out. I can wait.
