danielcc hat geschrieben: Heute 08:43 Jetzt müsste der Artikel nur noch erklären inwiefern der Film Geld macht indem er kostenlos auf Prime angeboten wird

danielcc hat geschrieben: Heute 08:43 Jetzt müsste der Artikel nur noch erklären inwiefern der Film Geld macht indem er kostenlos auf Prime angeboten wird

After the movie opened last weekend in the U.S. to a less-than-festive $32 million (revised downward from an estimated $34 million on Sunday), folks close to Amazon, the e-retailer turned aspiring media giant, insisted the movie was successful. It didn’t matter that it would take a Christmas miracle for “Red One” to ever get out of the red during its theatrical run. And who cares that “Joker: Folie à Deux” was declared a folie à dud when the Warner Bros. sequel opened to $38 million a few weeks prior, despite costing $50 million less than “Red One.” The idea was that all of the attention surrounding the movie’s big-screen release would ensure that a vast audience tunes in when “Red One” debuts at some point on the company’s streaming service Prime Video, in turn bolstering subscribers or keeping them from shedding the service for another.

Oh, and then there are all the ancillary revenues that the Rock will bring — from third-party licensing deals to movie rentals to merchandising (who wants a “Red One” beer stein?). It’s all part of a new kind of movie math, one that de-emphasizes box office returns, which are reported and therefore publicly verifiable, in favor of future downstream revenues, which are rarely revealed and only made public in a scarce and aggressively spun manner.

(...)

It’s impossible to know if financial gambles like “Red One” ever pay off (though the greenlighting of “Red One Two” would be a clue). But Amazon MGM head of theatrical distribution Kevin Wilson hinted at the studio’s justification for spending big without requiring a lot of ticket sales in return. For big-budget tentpoles from traditional studios, the general rule is the movie needs to generate 2.5 times its production budget to break even at the box office. (That’s because cinemas keep roughly 50% of revenues). Amazon MGM, however, counts it as a win if it earns back the marketing and distribution costs, which can run in the $100 million range for these types of films.

“Whether or not people like it, the value of these movies is different for our business model,” Wilson told Variety over the weekend. “If we can put these movies out theatrically and cover our P&A [print and advertising] costs, why wouldn’t we? We’re getting a massive marketing campaign that’s being paid for before the film gets to streaming.”

Analysts like Gross question that type of accounting. “That assumes ‘Red One’ will recoup the marketing and distribution costs, which may not even happen,” he says. “As a theatrical film, it will lose over $100 million. On the face of it, it doesn’t appear to be a good investment.”

Cinema owners and traditional studios believe Amazon and Apple’s investment in theatrical is good for the health of the movie business. “Red One,” for example, was being developed for Amazon Prime before the studio opted for a theatrical release after strong test screenings. To wit, “Red One” earned an A- grade on CinemaScore from moviegoers, a much better marking than the 33% Rotten Tomatoes average from critics. Movie theaters need commercial movies, particularly with studios releasing fewer of them, and they’re not on the hook if a film fails to recoup its budget. They’re more than happy to serve as a pricey form of promotion for an eventual streaming release.

vodkamartini hat geschrieben: Heute 11:59 Und ich kann mir durchaus vorstellen, dass der unter dem Strich rentabel ist.